Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Late Roman Army Grade/Rank List under Anastasius
(06-29-2017, 02:38 PM)Longovicium Wrote: I am not too familiar with Hyginus but would these 800 'Pannonian' Veredarii equate to the legionary cavalry billeted in the Hyginian camp?

Sorry Francis, I seem to have missed your post before (unless there was a time lag in its appearance again...?)

Hyginus's camp holds three legions, I think, and most likely dates to the early 2nd century - I can't remember who suggested that the 'Pannonian Veredarii' might be cavalry detached from the three legions (which may indeed have come from Pannonia), but if so we would have around 260-270 per legion - that does look rather Perge-like, but the legions in question were still c.6000 men so we shouldn't go too crazy with that idea!

I do suspect that these 'veredarii' cavalry at Perge were somehow a substitute for the old legion cavalry that had been detached as Promoti.


Meanwhile, a little more on veredarii in earlier military formations (one of these inscriptions has already been mentioned by Marcel):

CIL 03, 13795 (Rakovitza, Dacia, AD138): n(umerus) burg(ariorum) et veredario(rum) Daciae inf(erioris) sub / Fl(avio) Constante proc(uratore) Aug(usti)

CIL 13, 07439 (Kapersburg, Germania): In h(onorem) d(omus) d(ivinae) Genio / veredariorum n(umeri) N(idensium)

CIL 13, 08492 (Koln, Germania): ...nus vered(arius) [et] / [3]stis Dirmes[us(?)] / [vetera]nus item cu[rat(or)] / [n(umeri) Britto]num cum

All three appear to show veredarii attached to frontier numeri in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. As Marcel noted, the Numerus Nidensium one included a dedication to the celtic horse goddess Epona.
Reply
OK, if we extrapolate from that - and using Pavlovic's thesis as a base - then the differentiation between the Veredarii and the Veredarii alli might be better understood as follows: Pavlovic argues that Vegetius' use of the term 'loricatus' in relation to the legionary cavalry is a technical one and which refers specifically to heavy cavalry or cataphracts. He argues that these 'loricati' were attached to the first cohort and were distinct from the other 'contati' legionary cavalry. (III.16/17)

So it seems that within the traditional legionary equites structure there existed two grades of cavalry: the normal contati and the more heavily armoured loricati or cataphracts (attached only to the first cohort). If we understand the Perge legion to have a traditional legionary cavalry component wherein each cavalry 'unit' is part of the century/cohort for administrative/pay purposes, then can we better understand the distinction between the Veredarii and the Veredarii Alii as reflecting a Vegetian differentiation between the standard cavalry of the legion and a special heavy cavalry component assigned to the elite first or double-strength cohort.

If so - and there are a lot of ifs here - these 50 elite Veredarii might allow us to better understand the infantry cohort/century structure. The earlier outline of the cavalry component which incorporated the Veredarii into the Veredarii Alii might be flawed. The Veredarii and the Veredarii Alii were in fact different classes of legionary cavalry . . .
Francis Hagan

The Barcarii
Reply
Nathan wrote:

And yet this unit is clearly identified as both a legion and a numerus.
 
And both are separate units. A legion cannot be synonymous with a numerus. Why would the Romans want to create confusion in matters relating to military organisation? The Romans are pragmatic and have since the beginning of the Republic adhered to a very formularize military organisational system. Now I am lead to believe the Romans have abandoned that for a Abbot and Costello organisation of who’s on first and what’s on second.
 
Nathan wrote:
However do you know this? Only the clerici et deputati would seem plausibly to be supernumeraries - we have to assume that the others fit into the organisation somewhow.
 
Yes, assume is the correct word, or lets bash squares into round holes. The names (Slab C) are such unlegionary names, it cannot be a legion with cavalry. A numerus of auxiliaries infantry and a numerus of cavalry, yes I can buy that.
 
Nathan wrote:
Yep. That's been my working theory for some time now.
 
Except the 50 Veredarii and the 225 Veredarii are not playing ball. I have found that Roman military mathematics should be continuously divided by 2 to arrive at the smallest subdivisions of the unit. So the 32 men I have in my last post when divisible by 2, results in 16, then 8 then 4. The 225 Veradarii cannot do this, and it tells me that even with the other 50 veredarii, because there number ends in a 5, its proper strength has not been recorded.
 
Nathan wrote:
Or maybe the numbers work some other way (my suggestion above somewhere does this, but it's far from perfect as there are no file closers).
 
My whole research has the Romans as having no file closers as there organisation was linear. However, that does not mean this did not occur by the Perge timeframe, but I still doubt they had file closers.
 
Nathan wrote:
But clearly the different grades are articulated in some way within the ordo. The semissales and duplares are another matter - although their collected totals break down by 4, 8 and 16...
 
The 256 Brachiati semissales are divisible by 4, 8 and 16, but not the 136 Torquati semissales. My estimate of the size of a legion is 1,600 men which is divisible by 4, 8 and 16.
 
Nathan wrote:
I wouldn't be too hasty! The document you quoted appears to be addressing a problem with higher-grade soldiers lingering in the army beyond their enlistment time in order to claim pay  - it surely doesn't mean that anyone earning 5 annonae or more should be immediately discharged. That way there would be no Ordinarii, or senior ranking soldiers at all.
 
Mate, I put the emotion thingy at the end to show it was a joke, like nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more.
 
Nathan wrote:
This is Onur's conclusion, as stated in his paper. Although I think it's more probably just a fault in expression.
 
In that case I will disregard it.
 
Reply
(06-30-2017, 07:08 AM)Steven James Wrote: A legion cannot be synonymous with a numerus... The Romans are pragmatic and have since the beginning of the Republic adhered to a very formularize military organisational system.

I refer you (again) to Sozomen Ecclesiastical History I.8: "From that period [i.e of Constantine] the Roman Legions, which now were called numeri..."

Also (again) to the Notitia Dignitatum, which lists legions (and all other units) under the heading numeri.

Also (again) to CIL 03, 10232, which refers to the palatine legion of the Ioviani as the numero Iovianorum.

Not to mention the very document under discussion, which refers to a unit commanded by a tribunis numeri as a legion.

The 'military organisational system' at work 'since the beginning of the Republic' is your own theory, and if the evidence does not support it then the theory should be revised, not the evidence.



(06-30-2017, 07:08 AM)Steven James Wrote: The names (Slab C) are such unlegionary names, it cannot be a legion with cavalry.

They appear to be very 'legionary names'. Ordinarii, signiferi, optiones, and so on. And the 'new' titles on the list are mentioned by Vegetius in his description of the 'ancient legion' (although these grades are more properly those of his own day).

The only not grade recorded elsewhere as part of the legion is 'veredarii' - but Vegetius, of course, has large numbers of cavalry integral to his legion, the old legion had its equites legionis, and tetrarchic legions in Egypt had large detachments of Promoti still on the strength, it seems. So nothing unusual about a legion with cavalry.

Whatever happened to "I let the primary sources guide me, always have and always will"? [Image: wink.png]



(06-30-2017, 07:08 AM)Steven James Wrote: I have found that Roman military mathematics should be continuously divided by 2 to arrive at the smallest subdivisions of the unit... The 225 Veradarii cannot do this, and it tells me that... its proper strength has not been recorded.

The proper strength has almost certainly been recorded. If you do not believe this to be the case, look again at the original inscription. Professor Onur has provided good quality photographs of it in his paper. Learn Greek (or just Greek numbers) and produce your own alternative translation or reading.

If you cannot do this, you must accept what's there, rather than disbelieving it because it doesn't say what you think it should say.

225 is an odd number - but we should almost certainly add the two bucinators and quite possibly the three mensores (as I suggested above). The result is still baffling, but we need to work with what we have.



(06-30-2017, 07:08 AM)Steven James Wrote: The 256 Brachiati semissales are divisible by 4, 8 and 16, but not the 136 Torquati semissales. My estimate of the size of a legion is 1,600 men which is divisible by 4, 8 and 16.

Add them all together - and the 40 armaturae as well - and you will find that the collective number divides by 4, 8 and 16.

The legion could be around 1600, but it cannot be exactly this number. The closest would be 1572 or 1672. We are working with exact figures here, not rough estimates.

With 159 munifices, the ten infantry ordines would total 960 men - a figure which divides into 4, 8 and 16, like the senior soldier grades, which in turn might support the idea that 1272 is the correct number for the legion. The next increment which would allow this is 559 munifices, giving a legion total of 1672 (1360 infantry soldiers), which again looks very feasible.



(06-30-2017, 07:08 AM)Steven James Wrote: I put the emotion thingy at the end to show it was a joke

Aha - emotion thingies are often not as expressive as we might like!
Reply
Quote: Hyginus's camp holds three legions, I think, and most likely dates to the early 2nd century - I can't remember who suggested that the 'Pannonian Veredarii' might be cavalry detached from the three legions (which may indeed have come from Pannonia), but if so we would have around 260-270 per legion - that does look rather Perge-like, but the legions in question were still c.6000 men so we shouldn't go too crazy with that idea!

I do suspect that these 'veredarii' cavalry at Perge were somehow a substitute for the old legion cavalry that had been detached as Promoti.
Meanwhile, a little more on veredarii in earlier military formations (one of these inscriptions has already been mentioned by Marcel):
CIL 03, 13795 (Rakovitza, Dacia, AD138): n(umerus) burg(ariorum) et veredario(rum) Daciae inf(erioris) sub / Fl(avio) Constante proc(uratore) Aug(usti)
CIL 13, 07439 (Kapersburg, Germania): In h(onorem) d(omus) d(ivinae) Genio / veredariorum n(umeri) N(idensium)
CIL 13, 08492 (Koln, Germania): ...nus vered(arius) [et] / [3]stis Dirmes[us(?)] / [vetera]nus item cu[rat(or)] / [n(umeri) Britto]num cum
All three appear to show veredarii attached to frontier numeri in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. As Marcel noted, the Numerus Nidensium one included a dedication to the celtic horse goddess Epona.
 

Ah nice find re the veredariorum/ius - thanks for sharing that. I did wonder what epigraphical evidence for veredarii existed outside the Perge Edict. 

As for the Promoti, Pavlovic's thesis raises some interesting points: he states that the promoti as we known them in the ND were legionary cavalry brigaded away from their legion and which never returned to the province where the legion was billeted and hence its administrative umbrella, as it were. In other words, any legionary cavalry which were detached and despatched beyond the administrative reach of the parent legion were reconstituted as stand alone cavalry units - the Equites Promoti listed in the ND. However, he suggests that promoti who were detached and/or brigaded with others but who subsequently returned or never moved outside the provincial zone of the parent legion remained 'on the books' and would therefore not appear in the ND as separate stand-alone units. The general theory that all legionary cavalry were hived-off sort of falls apart here if he is correct. This makes persuasive reading and would account for the veredarii listed with the Perge legion.

But there's more: Pavlovic argues that, following a careful reading of Vegetius, there were 2 classes of legionary cavalry listed on the centurial rolls. The main body attached to the cohorts apart from the First Cohort were all what Vegetius lists as 'contati' units however Vegetius distinguishes them from another legionary cavalry type called the 'loricati'  or armoured. Given that the mainstay cavalry were armoured anyway, he thinks this refers to heavy armour or cataphract cavalry (Vegetius 2.16). He states on page 114 of the thesis that the legionary cavalry equalled 4 turmae for the First (double-sized) cohort and 2 turmae for each of the remaining nine cohorts. But these turmae were not necessarily proper turmae merely tactical units. This is an interesting division for it implies a ratio of heavy cavalry to lance or contus cavalry which might mirror the Perge Edict. I am thinking of the two grades of veredarii here and wonder if the 50 veredarii and the 225 veredarii alii might in some manner echo this distinction?

Maths is not my strong suit, however . . .
Francis Hagan

The Barcarii
Reply
(06-30-2017, 11:51 AM)Longovicium Wrote: ...promoti who were detached and/or brigaded with others but who subsequently returned or never moved outside the provincial zone of the parent legion remained 'on the books' and would therefore not appear in the ND as separate stand-alone units. The general theory that all legionary cavalry were hived-off sort of falls apart here if he is correct.

Yes, I think it's almost certainly true that some of the legion cavalry remained with their legions into the 4th century - we have the Equites Promoti of II Traiana in Egypt, for example, on the Panopolis papyri. This might have happened in the east too - I'm sure I recall a reference to promoti attached to a legion somewhere out there. There's also a theory, I think, that the Equites Promoti Indigenae listed in the ND are legion cavalry - detached from units 'indigenous' to the provinces, rather than raised from natives as is usually suggested. Although I can't remember where I read that either!

However... I don't think the Veredarii are the same as the old Promoti - or surely they would be called by that name?


(06-30-2017, 11:51 AM)Longovicium Wrote: ...an interesting division for it implies a ratio of heavy cavalry to lance or contus cavalry which might mirror the Perge Edict. I am thinking of the two grades of veredarii here and wonder if the 50 veredarii and the 225 veredarii alii might in some manner echo this distinction?

Veredus apparently means a light horse, of the hunting/courier variety - the word is supposedly Gallic, interestingly. So we should probably assume that veredarii were originally light cavalry, perhaps rather irregular, and may have stayed that way.

The five senior Veredarii may have been equipped differently to the rest, but it might be better to see them as leaders of the remaining men. It's quite hard to make the veredarii divide by five, sadly - but if we assume that these light horsemen were used in the sort of skirmishing or outflanking moves that Maurice describes for his cavalry drungus, then regular formations may not have been such a pressing concern!
Reply
Nathan wrote:

I refer you (again) to Sozomen Ecclesiastical History I.8: "From that period [i.e of Constantine] the Roman Legions, which now were called numeri..."
 
I refer you to a common translation (one of many) that states: “From that period the Roman legions, which now were called by their number.” In Latin numerus can also mean “number.” Also Sozomen wrote in Greek, no Latin, so Sozomen is not specifically stating numeri. We need to check the original text. It would be interesting if the text had the word arithmoi, but I think it would be the Greek word for number.
 
Nathan wrote:
Also (again) to the Notitia Dignitatum, which lists legions (and all other units) under the heading numeri.
 
And they could well mean numerii of the legion, with a legion being made up of a number of numeri. There are records of vexillations belonging to a specific legion so it could be the same thing.
 
Nathan wrote:
Also (again) to CIL 03, 10232, which refers to the palatine legion of the Ioviani as the numero Iovianorum.
 
So now CIL 03, 10232 has definitely become a legion, yet in another posting you yourself state that it could also refer to the auxilia unit of the Iovii. What is it to be?
 
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/thread-30407-post-344681.html#pid344681
 
Nathan wrote:
Not to mention the very document under discussion, which refers to a unit commanded by a tribunis numeri as a legion.
 
As I understand it, legion in Slab A and B, numeri in Slab C.
 
Nathan wrote:
The 'military organisational system' at work 'since the beginning of the Republic' is your own theory, and if the evidence does not support it then the theory should be revised, not the evidence.
 
The evidence shows that during the republic, a legion was called a legion, and not something else. A century was called a century, a maniple a maniple, an ordo an ordo and a cohort a cohort. That is not a theory of mine, it is known to all and sundry, so there is no need for me to do any revision.
 
Nathan wrote:
They appear to be very 'legionary names'. Ordinarii, signiferi, optiones, and so on.
 
You cannot hide a dead elephant with a grasshopper. Why no mention of troop types like lanceraii or following Theodoret (3 12) that Valentinian was a Tribune and commanded the hastati. Any reason why the Perge is absent of familiar names?
 
Nathan wrote:
So nothing unusual about a legion with cavalry.
 
Well how the times have changed. And to think of the countless debates I had stressing this point and you lot dismissing it all.
 
Nathan wrote:
Whatever happened to "I let the primary sources guide me, always have and always will"?
 
Alas I do, and I don’t slightly alter their meanings with every change of the wind.
 
Nathan wrote:
225 is an odd number - but we should almost certainly add the two bucinators and quite possibly the three mensores (as I suggested above). The result is still baffling, but we need to work with what we have.
 
Which shows the Perge document produces more questions than answers.
 
Nathan wrote:
The legion could be around 1600, but it cannot be exactly this number. The closest would be 1572 or 1672. We are working with exact figures here, not rough estimates.
 
My 1600 does not include officers and supernumeraries, nor have I shown how it is broken into subunits, or what it could be with the removal of the seniores.
 
Reply
(06-30-2017, 01:14 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: Veredus apparently means a light horse, of the hunting/courier variety - the word is supposedly Gallic, interestingly. So we should probably assume that veredarii were originally light cavalry, perhaps rather irregular, and may have stayed that way.

The five senior Veredarii may have been equipped differently to the rest, but it might be better to see them as leaders of the remaining men. It's quite hard to make the veredarii divide by five, sadly - but if we assume that these light horsemen were used in the sort of skirmishing or outflanking moves that Maurice describes for his cavalry drungus, then regular formations may not have been such a pressing concern!

Would it be possible to think of the Veredarii as horse archers? Perhaps acting in a double role as scouts?
_________________________________
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR: Forum rules
FECTIO Late Roman Society
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply
Robert, I think they could be. If we take the Armenian/Iberian example I referred to earlier then Sagittarii would be the logical type.  Nathan's list earlier seems to point to frontier/burgarii associations which would again suppose light horse.

I think Pavkovic's point was that legionary horsemen were capable of being graded or used in at least 2 distinct battlefield roles: the contati or lancer and the loricati or heavily-armoured cataphract. If the Perge Edict refers to a frontier legion formally raised up into the field army, then it would instead utilise light 'hunting' cavalry - a portion of which were equipped for more direct engagement. That's where I wondered about the grade difference among the veredarii. As I understand the normal legionary cavalry structure prior to the reforms, centurions commanded the promoti so here would not the one of the Ordinarii command the tactical cavalry troop attached to its parent century?

If the Perge legion has 10 infantry sub-units or centuries then it follows (as Nathan has posted earlier) there will be 10 equivalent attached cavalry units. However, if we play a game here and use the 50 veredarii as a separate cavalry type (following Pavkovic - perhaps armoured horse-archers?) and attach it to the first century we have 225 veredarii troopers remaining which splits nicely into 9 cavalry turma of 25 troopers. These are attached to the remaining 9 centuries. The first Turma is a double-strength Turma of Veredarii and is perhaps a remnant of the cavalry as it stood when the cohortal structure had a double-strength First Cohort. These figures are minus the commanding Ordinarii, Vexillarii and other supernumeraries, of course.

Now my head hurts . . .
Francis Hagan

The Barcarii
Reply
(06-30-2017, 02:01 PM)Steven James Wrote: I refer you to a common translation (one of many) that states: “From that period the Roman legions, which now were called by their number.”... We need to check the original text. It would be interesting if the text had the word arithmoi, but I think it would be the Greek word for number.

I thought you might have remembered this post (and following) from earlier in this thread, which has the original Greek text. Yes, Sozomen says arithmoi, and calls the units tagmata, but the meaning is clear. Arithmos (Greek) and Numerus (Latin) are the same, and in context I believe Soz must have been referring to legions here.


(06-30-2017, 02:01 PM)Steven James Wrote: And they could well mean numerii of the legion, with a legion being made up of a number of numeri.

No, it is a list of units - numeri - and some of those units are legions. You cannot read it otherwise in context, surely.



(06-30-2017, 02:01 PM)Steven James Wrote: it could also refer to the auxilia unit of the Iovii.

It could, although that would be numerus Ioviorum, not Iovianorum. The balance of probability is that this refers to the Iovianii.



(06-30-2017, 02:01 PM)Steven James Wrote: legion in Slab A and B, numeri in Slab C.

It seems to me patently obvious that the text on Slab B refers to the list on Slab C. If you wish to believe otherwise, we would have to ask what the purpose of this inscription might be.



(06-30-2017, 02:01 PM)Steven James Wrote: Any reason why the Perge is absent of familiar names?

No idea. We're missing the tesserarii too. But you commented that the names were 'unlegionary', not that certain grades or ranks associated with the legions were missing.


(06-30-2017, 02:01 PM)Steven James Wrote: think of the countless debates I had stressing this point and you lot dismissing it all.

Nobody has dismissed the idea that the legions had cavalry. You have previously claimed, I think, that the legion cavalry were somehow attached to auxiliary alae, or that alae were part of the legions. Or that legions of the principiate had 480 cavalry. These are different questions.



(06-30-2017, 02:01 PM)Steven James Wrote: My 1600 does not include officers and supernumeraries, nor have I shown how it is broken into subunits, or what it could be with the removal of the seniores.

Who are the 'seniores' and why would they be removed? What figure do you get when you add the 'officers and supernumeraries'?




(06-30-2017, 02:46 PM)Longovicium Wrote: we have 225 veredarii troopers remaining which splits nicely into 9 cavalry turma of 25 troopers. These are attached to the remaining 9 centuries. The first Turma is a double-strength Turma of Veredarii

Yes - this is pretty much the formula I was trying to use in this version.

The '9 x 25 + 1 x 50' structure looks fairly neat, and deals with our oddly numbered Veredarii Alii effectively. It does look very unbalanced though. Things would help a great deal if we had different grades of ordinarii, but sadly that ain't so...

Horse archers / scouts / bandit hunters / skirmishers / road patrolmen / piquets - I'm sure our veredarii could fill any or all of these roles!
Reply
Francis wrote:

However, if we play a game here and use the 50 veredarii as a separate cavalry type (following Pavkovic - perhaps armoured horse-archers?) and attach it to the first century we have 225 veredarii troopers remaining which splits nicely into 9 cavalry turma of 25 troopers.
 
A squadron of 25 troopers has extremely limited deployment arrangements, like 5 horses wide by 5 horses deep. How does it extend its frontage and depth evenly if required? What is its frontage in column of march?
 
Francis wrote:
Now my head hurts . . .
 
Welcome to my world for the past 12 years.
 
Nathan wrote:
Yes, Sozomen says arithmoi, and calls the units tagmata, but the meaning is clear. Arithmos (Greek) and Numerus (Latin) are the same.
 
So how is it clear that an arithmoi is equivalent to a numerus? I want proof, rather than just follow the latest group think. What if an arithmoi was equivalent to two numerii?
 
Nathan wrote:
It could, although that would be numerus Ioviorum, not Iovianorum. The balance of probability is that this refers to the Iovianii.
 
The balance of probability still means uncertainty, so no clear conclusion can be arrived at.
 
Nathan wrote:
It seems to me patently obvious that the text on Slab B refers to the list on Slab C. If you wish to believe otherwise, we would have to ask what the purpose of this inscription might be.
 
There is nothing wrong with questioning. Sometimes the obvious can turn out to be different to perceived notions. It can also be a trap wanting to believe it is about a legion. I am keeping an open mind and playing the devil’s advocate. For some the Perge document has become the new Holy Grail that will answer all answers. Old Buddhist saying “expectations can lead to disappointment.”
 
Nathan wrote:
No idea. We're missing the tesserarii too.
 
The question is why they are missing. Doesn’t that deserve some attention?
 
Nathan wrote:
What figure do you get when you add the 'officers and supernumeraries'?
 
My research ends at 410 AD. The Perge document has reinforced for me that between 410 AD and the Perge document, there has been a military reform. The important question is, is an arithmoi equivalent in size to a numerus? Up to 410 AD, I am following the premise that a legion was organised into numerii, and two numerii was equivalent to one arithmoi. If there is proof that this is wrong, then I am happy to change it to a numerus equals an arithmoi, it is only a matter of changing some words. I am also following the premise that a numerus was two thirds in size of a legion vexillation, with a numerus representing specific troop types of the legion, whereas a legion vexillation included all troop types of a legion. This appears to have its roots in the principate.
Reply
(07-01-2017, 02:52 AM)Steven James Wrote: So how is it clear that an arithmoi is equivalent to a numerus? I want proof, rather than just follow the latest group think.

The two words have the same meaning ('number') - one is Greek, the other is Latin. They are used in the same contexts to refer to the same units. Zonarus's τριβοΰνον άριϑμοΰ is Theophanes's Τριβοΰνος νουμέρου.

Compare also the two inscriptions cited here: νουμέρο̣υ̣ [τῶν] γενν(αιοτάτων) καὶ καθοσιω[μ(ένων)] Κωνσταντινιανῶ[ν] and γεννεοτάτου ἀριθμοῦ τῶν καθοσιωμ(ένων). The 'Κωνσταντινιανῶν' also appear on a Latin inscription from Varna (CLEMoes 44): Moni / de numero / Const(antinianorum) sen(iorum).

This is not 'group think' (whatever that might be!). If you are claiming these words are different in some way, provide evidence.


(07-01-2017, 02:52 AM)Steven James Wrote: It can also be a trap wanting to believe it is about a legion.

Wanting to believe doesn't come into it - the words are right there before us (λεγεoσιν / λεγεόνων / λεγεoναςas).

We might rather ask why you are wanting to disbelieve... [Image: wink.png]


(07-01-2017, 02:52 AM)Steven James Wrote: The question is why they are missing. Doesn’t that deserve some attention?

It has received some. There are certain ranks - campidoctor, or magister draconum - mentioned on Slabs A and B that are not on Slab C. This indicates that the pay grades on C can cover various ranks or roles within the legion/numerus. This does not alter the numbers of men in each pay grade.


(07-01-2017, 02:52 AM)Steven James Wrote: I am also following the premise that a numerus was two thirds in size of a legion vexillation, with a numerus representing specific troop types of the legion, whereas a legion vexillation included all troop types of a legion.

Are you using any evidence to support this idea?
Reply
(08-17-2016, 10:14 AM)Francis wrote: Wrote: However, if we play a game here and use the 50 veredarii as a separate cavalry type (following Pavkovic - perhaps armoured horse-archers?) and attach it to the first century we have 225 veredarii troopers remaining which splits nicely into 9 cavalry turma of 25 troopers.
 
A squadron of 25 troopers has extremely limited deployment arrangements, like 5 horses wide by 5 horses deep. How does it extend its frontage and depth evenly if required? What is its frontage in column of march?
 The Anonymous writer circa 550 AD discusses cavalry arrangements at section 17: There is the file leader, four ranks behind him, the rear and flank guards, all brave, physically strong and with combat experience. The horses are deployed differently to reduce or enlarge the squadron - some line up the heads of the horses of the second rank with the shoulders of the front rank, others line them up with the flanks of the horses in the front rank. Depth is not such an issue with cavalry squadrons as unlike infantry formations horses cannot 'push' or 'brace' into the body in front. The cavalry phalanx differs from the infantry one in that it possess mass and speed at the charge hence it does not require the push and density which infantry phalanxes need.

I think Mauricius writing a little later goes into more detail regarding this issue.
 
Several turmae together would form up in line abreast or in column/wedge formation. As with the infantry, each trooper would be designated as a primani and secundani (the Anonymous writer calls then protostates and epistates respectively) down the file. Using that convention will allow the turma commander to open the ranks or close them up.

Frontage? No idea.
Francis Hagan

The Barcarii
Reply
Would those cavalry troops really be 25(50) though... We probably have to add at least an officer, standard bearer, etc. Final number might be 28 (or something else!), which would be somewhat less awkward that 25. The few ancient manuals that we have seem to indicate that "officers" have a specific spot in a cavalry formation.
Timothee.
Reply
(07-01-2017, 04:16 PM)Timus Wrote: Final number might be 28 (or something else!), which would be somewhat less awkward that 25.

I would estimate 28 as a bare minimum if we're dividing the cavalry equally by ten. 5 Veredarii, 23 Veredarii Alii*. Plus the vexillarius and ordinarius and we get 30.

* including the 2 bucinators and 3 mensores in the total, as before.


(07-01-2017, 02:22 PM)Longovicium Wrote: There is the file leader, four ranks behind him, the rear and flank guards, all brave, physically strong and with combat experience.

Hey, interesting. Are the 'rear and flank guards' part of the four ranks, or separate, would you say? And are they two different groups, or combined in some way?


(07-01-2017, 02:22 PM)Longovicium Wrote: some line up the heads of the horses of the second rank with the shoulders of the front rank, others line them up with the flanks of the horses in the front rank. 

This would seem to suggest more of a chevron formation [diamond actually!] than a square - more useful for horse archery, I would think, and easier to lead off into a clockwise 'Cantabrian circle' manoeuvre (presuming all the men are right handed!)


(07-01-2017, 04:16 PM)Timus Wrote: The few ancient manuals that we have seem to indicate that "officers" have a specific spot in a cavalry formation.

Hmm, ok - so if we put our 30 men into a chevron, the ordinarius would take the 'lead point', with the vexillarius tucked in on his right and the five veredarii leading files in echelon to his left. The remaining 23 places would be filled by the veredarii alii in four ranks, and each of them would be following the man ahead and to to his right.

   

We don't have any 'rear and flank guards' though, assuming they held some special rank or grade and were not part of the veredarii alii.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  References to late Roman army??? Steven James 111 10,889 10-15-2017, 05:07 PM
Last Post: Nathan Ross
  Late Roman Army - seniores and iuniores Robert Vermaat 34 9,869 04-19-2017, 04:38 AM
Last Post: Steven James
  Late Roman Army Questions Legate 22 6,481 12-01-2015, 05:10 PM
Last Post: Flavivs Aetivs

Forum Jump: