RomanArmyTalk
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Printable Version

+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Late Roman Unit Sizes (/showthread.php?tid=23660)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34


Late Roman Unit Sizes - Frank - 03-08-2014

Quote:Going back a little to this thread, I'd still say that there is no evidence from the principiate period (for which we have far more epigraphic and literary detail) that legionary cohorts were commanded by anybody!

In the later empire, both 'tribune' and 'cohort' seem to shift in meaning (along with 'legion' and most other things...), and we have tribunes commanding legions, numeri of auxilia and old-style cohorts...

This is an important point! The command structure changed dramatically once in the 4th century, even if starting in the 3rd century already.

In the principate the story-book structure was:

provincia - exercitus legati augusti pro praetore

sector (of a province) - legion plus attached cohorts/alae commanded by a legatus legionis. And this is not a legion. This is a small exercitus with a legion as its core!

tactical unit - auxilia cohorts/alae commanded by tribunes/praefects and vexillationes of the legion commanded by tribunes.


In the late empire the legatus legionis disappears and was replaced by the praefectus legionis. But also the command structure changes. The structure is now:

praefectura or region: exercitus commanded by a magister militum or a comes

sector: exercitus of a front sector commanded by a dux (sometimes comes)

tactical unit: all kinds of units, e.g. cohorts, alae, numeri, legions comanded by tribunes, praefecti and praepositi.


You see what happened? The legion moved to the same level as a the former auxilia cohort. You should also consider, that the entire civil administration was not longer the responsibility of the legion. Also parts of military logistics was gone to the central fabricae and the now civil primipili dealing with the annonae militaris and supply of the military. There was no need anymore for a big legion with a big staff for military and civil administration and logistics.


The legion was now just an ordinary tactical military unit, led by a praefect or a tribune reporting to the commander of the exercitus, a magister militum, comes or dux. We also know not that much about the sub-structure of the late roman legion. If the commander was just on the level of a tribune, regardless if he was called praefectus if limitanei, he should command centurions now. And he needs just a small staff like a former tribunis cohortis: a cornicularius tribuni, a beneficarius tribuni and a few librarii, even if the titles and ranks of the NCOs changed too. The local administrative work was always done by the signifers of the centuriae anyways.


But, if the commander of a cohort and the commander of a legion are of same rank and fullfill the same role, because all former additional functions of the legion were stripped off in the late roman army, the units they are commanding should be organized similarily and be of comparable size.


Therefore I would not be surprised, If we find a papyrus showing a legio with a confirmed paper strength (!) of around 500 men (480 plus some staff and officers). The unit is still called legio, because it emerged from a vexillatio legionis hundred years ago. Tradition had always a strong meaning in the roman military. Heck, they still used terms like hastatus or pilus hundreds of years after it lost its meaning. Other vexillationes legionis were renamed, by whatever reason. Also 800+ men sounds reasonable, if the other way around a legion was stripped off any cohorts but the 1st cohort by vexillationes sent to campaigns and never came back.


Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 03-08-2014

Quote:Can someone post the units mentioned again?

My guess would be (as I've said in the 'Gildo' thread) the Herculiani and Ioviani Seniores, Sagittarii Nervii, Felices (seniores or iuniores), Augustei, Invicti Seniores and Leones (seniores or iuniores). Two Legiones Palatinae, five Auxilia Palatina units.

If the combined force numbered 5000, and we can assume some sort of regular established strength, this might suggest the legions had c.1000 men and the auxilia c.600.



Quote: You see what happened? The legion moved to the same level as a the former auxilia cohort.

That's one way of looking at it. Although I would prefer to see it move down to the level of a legion vexillation - this, rather than the auxiliary cohort, had been the central tactical element of most Roman field armies since the Marcomannic wars, it would appear. While we do have vexillations of combined aux cohorts, I suspect they were still largely used in a support role.


Quote: I would not be surprised, If we find a papyrus showing a legio with a confirmed paper strength (!) of around 500 men.

Perhaps! Although you'd have to account for the literary references, like the one above from Claudian, and the Zosimus quote we've discussed recently, that seem to suggest either a wide variety of 'legion' sizes - some very large, some small - or a usual strength of somewhere close to 1000 men. This would be in the field army - I don't doubt that some of the residual 'legions' of the frontiers might have numbered six men and a dog by the middle of the fifth century...

It is interesting how, after all this debate, we still seem to arrive at more or less the position suggested by A.H.M. Jones back in the 60's...


Late Roman Unit Sizes - Frank - 03-08-2014

Quote: Although I would prefer to see it move down to the level of a legion vexillation - this, rather than the auxiliary cohort, had been the central tactical element of most Roman field armies since the Marcomannic wars, it would appear. While we do have vexillations of combined aux cohorts, I suspect they were still largely used in a support role.

Possibly.

But vexillatio has several meanings. Basically it is just any detachment of soldiers from different units or just from one unit, e.g. 20 soldiers deployed to help repairing a street or 12 cohorts from 3 legions (all heavy infantry) marching from Moesia to Syria.

But I guess you refer to the tactical vexillatio. For me, that is nothing else than a fully operational and balanced small exercitus composed of all needed unit types: e.g. 2 cohors legionis (heavy infantry), 1 auxilia cohort (light infantry), 4 turmae and 2 centuria of archers under command of a tribune. Well, not all unit-types are always needed. Depends on the enemy.

There are hints, that the late roman units became much more flexible, than the units of the principate. So some units might have been a mix of heavy and light infantry. And some legionaries were even decent archers or slingers. So perhaps the new legion was not purely heavy infantry anymore. Even if specialized units did still exist in the field-armies.

If the late roman legion emerged from vexillationes or the core of stripped off legions, than it is hard to say, how strong they were at the end. Could be anything between 1 cohort and 9 cohorts.
But 800 (just the 1st cohort remaining) and 1000 ( the typical 2 cohort vexillatio per legion) sounds reasonable. The mother of all questions is: Did the romans ever define a new standard for the paper strength of a legion? Perhaps for the comitatenses and palatini, but for the limitanei?

Perhaps a limitanei units paper strength was just, what was rest after all these losses by vexillationes or what was available, when the new limitanei unit was founded anywhere. In this case, at least the late roman border army might look like a big mess. And it is senseless to look for standard unit sizes.


Late Roman Unit Sizes - antiochus - 03-08-2014

Frank wrote:
You see what happened? The legion moved to the same level as a the former auxilia cohort.

This is my conclusion also. Today I think I have a good idea as to why units got the name seniores. If memory serves me well, I think I recall Diocletian being responsible for enlarging the government, which again supports many of your claims.


Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 03-08-2014

If the 2 legions numbered 1200, and the 5 palatina numbered 600, 300 , 600, 300, and 300 it comes out to 4500 men.


Late Roman Unit Sizes - antiochus - 03-08-2014

Evan wrote:
If the 2 legions numbered 1200, and the 5 palatina numbered 600, 300 , 600, 300, and 300 it comes out to 4500 men.

What is the basis of how you made these deductions Evan? I’m not attacking you, I want to learn. In your breakdown you call 300 men a Numerus. I need to know why you named them so. And what are the unit names for LR army? This is my lack of knowledge coming through. I have been working on the theory today that all the prior centuries in the old legion were renamed iuniores and the posterior centuries renamed seniores. I need to find if there are inscriptions past Diocletian’s reign mentioning prior and posterior centuries so as to put this line of investigation to bed once and for all.


Late Roman Unit Sizes - Michael Kerr - 03-08-2014

I notice that when talking about the 7 regiments sent to fight the war against Gildo that the consensus seems that one of the regiments mentioned is the Augustei, however Roger Tomlin in his paper "Seniores - Iuniores in the Late Roman Army" agrees with the other 6 units mentioned but he thinks that the (VIII Augusta, i.e. Octavani, based in Italy) was the 7th unit sent which I think was a legion, not the Augustei. which I assume was an auxiliary regiment. :? Just curious about thoughts on this.
Regards
Michael Kerr



Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 03-08-2014

Quote:I need to find if there are inscriptions past Diocletian’s reign mentioning prior and posterior centuries so as to put this line of investigation to bed once and for all.

As far as I know, there are no inscriptions mentioning centuries at all post Diocletian. I think the last dateable ones are related to legionaries transferred to the praetorian guard, perhaps by Maxentius. The decline of epigraphy generally during this period leaves little evidence to go on, but it seems possible that the century was phased out under Constantine. Vegetius only mentions it as part of his 'antiqua legio'.



Quote:Roger Tomlin... thinks that the (VIII Augusta, i.e. Octavani, based in Italy) was the 7th unit sent which I think was a legion, not the Augustei

Could be true, although why should a poet be more aware of the 'Augustan' unit title than the compiler of the official Notitia? I think it's more likely to be the auxilia unit, just because it's listed among others of the same type - Claudian calling it a 'legion' creates confusion, but he's previously referred to the Herculiani and Joviani as 'cohorts', so we shouldn't put too much faith in his terminology!


Late Roman Unit Sizes - ValentinianVictrix - 03-08-2014

If We accept that Ammianus was not using classicing terms then he was using Legion, Auxilia, Cohort, Centuries and Maniples as late as possibly 395.


Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 03-08-2014

Quote:If We accept that Ammianus was not using classicing terms then he was using Legion, Auxilia, Cohort, Centuries and Maniples as late as possibly 395.

There's the problem that Vegetius (a near contemporary) makes it clear that he is discussing the ways of the 'ancients' when he talks about cohorts and maniples. Also that Ammianus uses quite a few other words that appear archaic (gladius, Parthians) and ends his piece with a statement that he has written in 'the grand style' - by which we could assume the style of older Roman historians. This might indeed suggest the deliberate use of classical archaicisms.


Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 03-08-2014

Quote:Evan wrote:
If the 2 legions numbered 1200, and the 5 palatina numbered 600, 300 , 600, 300, and 300 it comes out to 4500 men.

What is the basis of how you made these deductions Evan? I’m not attacking you, I want to learn. In your breakdown you call 300 men a Numerus. I need to know why you named them so. And what are the unit names for LR army? This is my lack of knowledge coming through. I have been working on the theory today that all the prior centuries in the old legion were renamed iuniores and the posterior centuries renamed seniores. I need to find if there are inscriptions past Diocletian’s reign mentioning prior and posterior centuries so as to put this line of investigation to bed once and for all.

I'm using the Byzantine sized Numerus of the Strategicon which was roughly 300 men on paper. In cases where it is a palatina numerus without an "Iuniores" or "Seniores" I use 600.


Late Roman Unit Sizes - Frank - 03-08-2014

Quote:... but it seems possible that the century was phased out under Constantine.

Why? Just because Vegetius does not mention the centurio of his times, means nothing. He writes about the ancient legion. No need to talk about the current one.

And what else should be the subunit of a unit of cohortsize or even bigger? I see no evidence for this possibility. We still have a centenarius in the late army. Most historians believe, that he is the successor of the centurio.


Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 03-09-2014

Quote:Why?

A few suggestions, none conclusive either way:

Firstly, the change in titles, from centurio to (centurio) ordinarius and centenarius. Why change the names if the unit size and hierarchy remained the same? What's the difference between the two new titles?

Secondly, Vegetius's note (II,13) that each cohort has its own draco. In earlier times, the centuria had a signum but the cohort had no standard. V claims that 'the ancients... divided the cohorts into centuries and established individual ensigns for each century'. It's unclear (as always with V!) but this might imply that the cohort is no longer divided into centuries (too small?), and so the cohortal draco suffices. All of V's references to centuries relate to the organisation of the 'ancient legion'.

(However, there is an inscription (AE 2006, 1256) to a signifer de numero Divitensium, which indicates signa - and therefore centuriae? - in the numeri... :dizzy: )

Thirdly, changes in barrack size and arrangement in later fortresses. Legion forts like Troesmis, Divita and Lejjun no longer have the traditional 10+ room barrack plan; instead there are often 6-8 rooms. This is similar to earlier developments in auxiliary forts, which also see a reduction of barrack rooms. Nicasie (Twilight of Empire) suggests a reduction in century size, while Collins (Hadrian's Wall and the End of Empire) suggests that the 'century' itself, reduced to 25-48 men, was renamed a familia. Either way, it was perhaps too small to act as a tactical or organisational division of the legion.

Fourthly, there are a couple of early 4th century tombstones where, instead of the traditional centuria name, the cohort number is given instead. M.P. Speidel suggests that this represents a reduced-size cohort acting in the place of the century.

As I say, none of this means that centuries necessarily vanished (some sort of 100-man subunit was apparently still in use in the Byzantine army), and I'd love to see some unequivocal evidence for the continuation of the traditional centurial structure (and the cohort structure in the 'new' units of legiones and auxilia), but we should be wary of assuming that things stayed the same... Our base of evidence for later unit structure is very small and scrappy, often contradictory, and insufficient to construct a definite picture.


Late Roman Unit Sizes - Mark Hygate - 03-09-2014

Quote:......................
As I say, none of this means that centuries necessarily vanished (some sort of 100-man subunit was apparently still in use in the Byzantine army), and I'd love to see some unequivocal evidence for the continuation of the traditional centurial structure (and the cohort structure in the 'new' units of legiones and auxilia), but we should be wary of assuming that things stayed the same... Our base of evidence for later unit structure is very small and scrappy, often contradictory, and insufficient to construct a definite picture.

Surely that would be counter-intuitive?

Without 'unequivocal evidence for a change in the traditional centurial structure', then it would perhaps be better to assume no change.

All military tactical usage and therefore organisational structure change is done for a reason and, certainly normally, makes sense. For pretty much a 1000 years+ the general nature of arms and armour didn't change - so why would the structures?

I am, I must admit, much more content with the idea that the Roman military system probably didn't change that much over 8 centuries. All we see are different snapshots and are probably better served theorizing a more reasonable static base. It's what I've been doing and I'll have to see if any think it hangs together. Smile


Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 03-09-2014

Quote:then it would perhaps be better to assume no change.

But if there are changes occuring on the surface (rank titles, fort layout, perhaps unit size) then would this not suggest that there are deeper changes too, at an organisational level? As I say, there is no certain evidence either way, but it seems wise to at least admit the strong possibility of change.


Quote:For pretty much a 1000 years+ the general nature of arms and armour didn't change - so why would the structures?

But they do change. We see a strong shift in Roman arms and equipment from the late third into the fourth centuries. This is combined with a distinctly smaller fortress size, and what must surely be a smaller sized 'legion' (or whatever later writers are referring to as a 'legion'!)

Why, then, should we assume that the internal structures remained the same?