RomanArmyTalk

Full Version: Cohortes civium Romanorum
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
If I recall correctly, the Cohortes cR were recruited immediately after the battle in the Teutoburg Forest, there were 17 of them, which were used for the first time in the spring of 10. I am not sure whether this is correct; it's merely how I've always understood things.

Now the battle in the Teutoburg Forest took place in September 9. Recruitment may have started in October. If training started in November, how can they have been battle-ready in, say, March? Maybe it is possible, but it strikes me as rather quick.

I am wondering: is it possible that these units, those odd auxilia manned by Roman citizens, were not completely new, but were in fact manned by survivors from the lost legions?

I mean, it has always appeared to me a bit strange that three legions could be completely destroyed; we know that there were survivors and I would not be surprised if there were thousands of them. Men who had lost their eagles and who had been defeated, true, but also valuable, well-trained, experienced soldiers. It would be foolish to ignore them; yet, reconstituting their units was impossible. Demoting them to the auxilia was sufficient punishment; but they were Romans, no one could deny that, so Tiberius/Augustus created auxilia of Roman citizens.

Does this sound possible?
Quote:If I recall correctly, the Cohortes cR were recruited immediately after the battle in the Teutoburg Forest, there were 17 of them, which were used for the first time in the spring of 10. I am not sure whether this is correct; it's merely how I've always understood things.

Quote:Now the battle in the Teutoburg Forest took place in September 9. Recruitment may have started in October. If training started in November, how can they have been battle-ready in, say, March? Maybe it is possible, but it strikes me as rather quick.

The theory, I think (cf. Holder 64) is that many of the cohorts contained veteran soldiers (cf. Velleius 2.113: "pluribus quam decem veteranorum milibus, ad hoc magno voluntariorum numero"). Perhaps timed-served veterans who had not yet been discharged. In any case, that's enough time to train a unit to fight. Not as well as a veteran unit, I grant you, but it'll do in a pinch. Many of the units which saw service in the early part of the civil wars between Pompeius and Caesar were much less experienced.

I don't think the units were cohortes ciuium Romanorum though. So far as I know, they were called cohortes uoluntarionum and ingenuorum and were raised in a series of emergency levies during the Pannonian revolt and the panic following the defeat of Varus. It's not completely clear which group of cohorts were raised in response to which crisis. There were already cohorts composed of Roman citizens (cohors Apula, for instance) at the time, and the forming of Roman citizens into cohorts (rather than legions) as an emergency levy was quite common: it's done for the Social War, and during the civil war between Pompeius and Caesar in both Italy and Spain. However, the cohortes uoluntarionum were commanded by tribunes, and it would have been obvious from the unit name that the soldiers in it were Roman citizens. I don't think it's until the Flavian period that you actually get units called "ciuium Romanorum". I'm a bit muddy on this, I confess.

blue skies

Tom
Quote:If I recall correctly, the Cohortes cR were recruited immediately after the battle in the Teutoburg Forest, there were 17 of them, which were used for the first time in the spring of 10. I am not sure whether this is correct; it's merely how I've always understood things.
You raise an interesting subject, Jona.

As Tom says, the Varian disaster followed on the heels of the Pannonian Revolt, and scholars have made a number of assumptions about Augustus' response to the general crisis. Reaching for my colleague Lawrence Keppie's Making of the Roman Army (as I usually do, for questions about the pre-Flavian military), I find the statement:
Quote:Now [viz. AD 9], if not also in AD 6, slaves and freedmen were enrolled and formed into cohortes voluntariorum. At least 32 such cohorts were formed, and some despatched at once to guard the Rhine frontier.
In fact, Suetonius (Div. Aug. 25.2) just says that freedmen were enrolled and sent to defend Illyricum and the Rhine. He adds that Augustus "kept them under their original vexillum, neither mixing them with citizens (ingenui) nor arming them in the same way". (The allegation that they were not mixed with ingenui has interesting implications for the cohortes ingenuorum. These were presumably a result of the separate dilectus ingenuorum, attested epigraphically.)

So it seems simply to be an assumption that the various cohortes voluntariorum date from this event. (Unless someone knows differently ..?)
Quote:
Jona Lendering:3pttu7f7 Wrote:If I recall correctly, the Cohortes cR were recruited immediately after the battle in the Teutoburg Forest, there were 17 of them, which were used for the first time in the spring of 10. I am not sure whether this is correct; it's merely how I've always understood things.
You raise an interesting subject, Jona.

As Tom says, the Varian disaster followed on the heels of the Pannonian Revolt, and scholars have made a number of assumptions about Augustus' response to the general crisis. Reaching for my colleague Lawrence Keppie's Making of the Roman Army (as I usually do, for questions about the pre-Flavian military), I find the statement:
Quote:Now [viz. AD 9], if not also in AD 6, slaves and freedmen were enrolled and formed into cohortes voluntariorum. At least 32 such cohorts were formed, and some despatched at once to guard the Rhine frontier.
In fact, Suetonius (Div. Aug. 25.2) just says that freedmen were enrolled and sent to defend Illyricum and the Rhine. He adds that Augustus "kept them under their original vexillum, neither mixing them with citizens (ingenui) nor arming them in the same way". (The allegation that they were not mixed with ingenui has interesting implications for the cohortes ingenuorum. These were presumably a result of the separate dilectus ingenuorum, attested epigraphically.)

So it seems simply to be an assumption that the various cohortes voluntariorum date from this event. (Unless someone knows differently ..?)

The earliest mention I have for a commander of a cohors uoluntariorum is L. Purtisius Atinas (Sasel and Sasel (1978) (ILJug 2) 75-76 no. 636 = AE 1964, 227 (Epidaurum, Dalmatia)) who commanded cohors VI uoluntariorum and is dated, I think by the dedication to "[P.] Dolabella leg(ato) pro pr(aetore)", to the late-Augustan/early Tiberian era. As you mention, the levies of "ingenuorum quem Romae habuit" (AE 1973, 501 = AE 1975, 806 = AE 1978, 790 = Ricl (1997) (IK-53) 34 (Alexandreia Troas, Asia)) suggest that cohorts were also raised from non-ingenui, presumably freedmen, and the cohortes uoluntariorum are a good fit for this - you're right, there is an assumption being made here, but the early date of Atinas (with, I think, no evidence that predates him) is good evidence to support the supposition that the unit was raised in the first decade AD.

There's some decent stuff in Speidel, M.P. (1976), ‘Citizen Cohorts in the Roman Imperial Army, New Data on the Cohorts Apula, Campana, and III Campestris’, TAPA 106 (1976) 339-348.

EDIT: I missed the implication of the Suetonius quote: if they were kept separate from ingenui, then the cohors uoluntariorum can't have contained time served vets. They almost certainly, therefore, were composed of green troops (although is it possible that emancipated men originally enslaved as prisoners of war might be included in their number? this might explain the precautions). Their training, therefore, would have been fairly hasty, but, as above, Rome had thrown greener troops into the fight before. In addition, I wonder what 'arming them in the same way' (odem modo armatos) should be taken to represent - light infantry perhaps?
Not any intention to disrupt this appasionate information exchange (I can´t add nothing) but to remark that the unit reenacted by my group (in it´s late Roman period) is one of such units (and never part of a legion): the Cohors Prima Gallica.

Edit:

Found this on wikipedia:

Quote:Thje unit was recruited as an infantry unit -Cohors quinquagenaria peditata- named Cohors I Voluntariorum after Teotoburg, receiving their insignia the April 22nd 10 a.C.,being sent by Octavian to the Rhin limes. As the Germaniae were simply military districts of the Gallia Belgica, tha unit received the nickname of Gallica, bein named in that moment as Cohors I Gallica Voluntariorum, under the command of a equestrial order´s Tribunus cohortis.


A. Jiménez de Furundarena, "Historia y prosopografía de la cohors I Gallica equitata civium Romanorum", Aquila·Legionis, 9, 2007, pp. 77-107, ISSN 1578-1518.

PS: Not the best hours for translations :?
I am reading all this with interest - thanks!
Quote:Not any intention to disrupt this appasionate information exchange ...
Everyone is welcome here, Iagoba!
Quote:... the unit reenacted by my group (in it´s late Roman period) is one of such units (and never part of a legion): the Cohors Prima Gallica.
Hmmm ... I'm not so sure. It certainly received a block grant of citizenship at some point, to become cohors I Gallica civium Romanorum (as spelled out almost in full in this career inscription), but there's no sign of voluntariorum on any of its inscriptions (as far as I can tell).[attachment=0:2cpxcr89]<!-- ia0 CIL_II_3851.jpg<!-- ia0 [/attachment:2cpxcr89]
Quote:I am reading all this with interest - thanks!
The more I think about this question, the odder it gets -- which, of course, is the sign of a good thread! Smile

The first element that intrigues me is Keppie's figure of 32 regiments. Jona initially mentioned 17. Where did that number come from? Cheesman (Auxilia, p. 66 n. 4) notes that "there were at least thirty-two cohortes voluntariorum" (presumably, but not explicitly, based on the existence of cohors XXXII Voluntariorum c.R.), but listed only 13 definites and 5 possibles (p. 187). (Note that high unit numerals can been explained in ways other than an unbroken series of homonymous units.) Cichorius seems to have dredged up 7 possibles to make a total of 20. So were there really 32? Or 18?

The second element that intrigues me is the assumption that Augustus' hastily raised regiments should be cohortes voluntariorum. Dio in particular makes it clear that membership was anything but voluntary! Maybe they would have considered themselves to be voluntarii, though? To set themselves apart?

And thirdly, if they were composed of freedmen, why were they not to be mixed up with ingenui (free-born). Simple prejudice? And does the existence of a cohors ingenuorum alongside the cohortes voluntariorum civium Romanorum point up this subtle difference?

All questions and no answers ... :?
Well, in the article I mentioned above, even a date (year, month and day, not the usual some year period!) for the day it received it´s insignia is given:
April 22 10 a.C.

Being the first among such units, at least by name, knowing where from come this statement it´s getting more interesting.
I will really try to look the article, but probably those used to look in the CIL (not my case) may find the answer earlier! :wink:
Probably it will be one "anniversary" related inscription.
Avete,

At first I thought this thread concerned the three Urban Cohorts of Rome. Is there any connection with them and these expeditionary citizen cohorts ? If not, sorry to distract from the main topic. Although, following the Varus disaster I would have thought Augustus would have simply deployed the Urban cohorts to prevent any panic or riots.

~Theo
Quote:Well, in the article I mentioned above, even a date (year, month and day, not the usual some year period!) for the day it received it´s insignia is given: April 22 10 a.C.
Eureka!

AE 1910, 1 (= Dessau, ILS 9130 -- not listed in the Spanish Wikipedia entry for this regiment) records:

I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) s(acrum)
pro salute Imp(eratoris)
Caes(aris) M(arci) Aur(eli) Anto-
nini Aug(usti) ob nata[le(m)]
aprunculorum

milites coh(ortis) I Gal[l(icae)]
sub cura M(arci) Senti
Bucconis
(centurionis) coh(ortis) eiusd(em)
et Val(erii) Sempronian[ i]
beneficiari(i) proc(uratoris) Au[g(usti)]
X Kal(endas) Mai(as) Pisone et Iuliano co(n)s(ulibus)

"The soldiers of cohors I Gallica" set up the inscription (an altar to Jupiter Best and Greatest) for the good health of Marcus Aurelius in AD 175 (? Pisone et Iuliano consulibus) to celebrate "the birthday of the little boars" on April 22 (i.e. 10 days before the kalends of May).

I guess "the birthday of the little boars" is the cohort's equivalent of the common legionary "birthday of the eagle" -- I confess I had not come across this previously. So the unit was formally constituted on April 22. (Now we only need to find evidence for the year of foundation.)

Many thanks for bringing this up, Iagoba. I owe you 1 karma!

(P.S. But no mention of voluntariorum! :wink: )
Thanks Big Grin

It has some logic that a Cohort cannot have an Eagle "birthday", so another emblem for the whole unit must be used instead (would be interesting to know the other corhort´s ones), in this case seems it´s another couple of fierce animals. Not new for my group, seems, after you mentioned the boars :wink:
I have recently found a paper on the history of the unit. It's in Spanish, but the latin inscriptions and the dates can be easily understood, specially regarding the issue of the Civium Romanorum:

Historia y prosopografia de la cohors I Gallica equitata civium Romanorum

Enjoy :wink:
Ah! I forgot to tell that probably, tomorow the 22nd of April 2010, one of this units (yeah, we the Prima Gallicani again :roll: ) got their insignia.
[size=150:1r4gse8s]
2000 round years... Big Grin wink:
Quote:Ah! I forgot to tell that probably, tomorow the 22nd of April 2010, one of this units (yeah, we the Prima Gallicani again :roll: ) got their insignia.
[size=150:3g1rdj13]
2000 round years... Big Grin wink:
Congratulations!
Pages: 1 2