+- 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)
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Renatus - 03-09-2014
Quote: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.You are Vegetius reincarnated!
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Ross Cowan - 03-09-2014
For very late legions/numeri, centurions, ordinarii and Augustales, see the Elephantine papyri:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qdrO1O5UcD0C&q=Flavialis#v=onepage&q=Augustalis&f=false
More discussion in The Patermouthis Archive (http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.0599796.0023.003:03]) and Evidence for the Byzantine Army in the Syene Papyri (http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.0599796.0027.001:19).
IIRC, the latest Elephantine papyrus to mention a 'centurio' dates to AD 613.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 03-09-2014
Quote:then it would perhaps be better to assume no change.
Another point occurs to me: under the principiate, a centurion received 15 times the pay of a legionary (Herz, in Erdkamp 2011, p.308). The centurions can rightly be called the backbone of the classic legion. By the sixth century (according to the Codex Justinianus I.27.2:19-36) the pay of a centenarius was only 2.5 annonae - if we assume 1 annona to be the pay of a miles, this is a significant reduction.
So, while the centurio of the principiate was a wealthy individual of high social status, the centenarius of the later legion was a relatively humble junior officer. This may just reflect the decline in status of the army as a whole, but could it not also indicate that the subunit commanded by the centenarius was no longer as important a division of the larger unit?
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 03-09-2014
Quote: see the Elephantine papyri
Thanks! Very interesting...
Re. footnote to p148, Does anyone have the full text of P.Lond V 1663 - 'a sixth century papyrus from Aphrodito' giving 'the strength of the arithmos [numerus?] of Numidian Justiniani' as 508 men? I'm assuming that this is the same papyrus mentioned by Robert Vermaat on his Fectio site, assigning 80 men to a centurio?
Late Roman Unit Sizes - antiochus - 03-09-2014
Nathan wrote:
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'.
Thanks Nathan, much appreciated. I will push on with the theory the iuniores were originally the prior centuries and the seniores were the posterior centuries. As the legion was defined by age division this seems (to me) quite plausible. It could also explain the absence of the term prior and posterior.
Nathan wrote:
In earlier times, the centuria had a signum but the cohort had no standard.
I understand a signa can mean a standard, banner or ensign, so it could belong to anything from a century to tribune cohort. However, and this is where I really get controversial (sorry Adrian) but a signa can also mean an orbis, the zodiac, and a group of stars or constellation. So if there are 30 degrees to a zodiac, then a 480 man cohort represents 16 zodiacs. Therefore, the signa could also be the cohort standard.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Ross Cowan - 03-09-2014
Text here: http://www.papyri.info/ddbdp/p.lond;5;1663.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Ross Cowan - 03-09-2014
Re. P. Lond. V 1663 again, Greek text and notes:
https://archive.org/stream/greekpapyriinbri05brituoft#page/29/mode/1up
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 03-09-2014
Ah, my apologies - I should have asked if anyone has the translated text in English!.... thanks anyway, Ross.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 03-09-2014
Quote: the theory the iuniores were originally the prior centuries and the seniores were the posterior centuries.
You might be interested in this quote, from de rebus bellicis (5,5):
scilicet ut centeni aut quinquageni iuniores, extra hos qui in matriculis continentur, habeantur in promptu armis exerciti et minori utpote tirones stipendio sublevati, in locum amissorum si res ita tulerit subrogandi
I can't find a translation and don't know latin, but Richard Duncan-Jones (Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy) claims it "suggests that gaps in the standing army should be filled" by the recruitment of subunits of 50 and (?) 100 men. This, Duncan-Jones says, "suggests that the writer was thinking of unit-sizes current in his own day". I'm not sure whether the mention of iuniores is at all significant...
Late Roman Unit Sizes - antiochus - 03-09-2014
Nathan wrote:
You might be interested in this quote, from de rebus bellicis (5,5): scilicet ut centeni aut quinquageni iuniores, extra hos qui in matriculis continentur, habeantur in promptu armis exerciti et minori utpote tirones stipendio sublevati, in locum amissorum si res ita tulerit subrogandi
I can't find a translation and don't know latin, but Richard Duncan-Jones (Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy) claims it "suggests that gaps in the standing army should be filled" by the recruitment of subunits of 50 and (?) 100 men. This, Duncan-Jones says, "suggests that the writer was thinking of unit-sizes current in his own day". I'm not sure whether the mention of iuniores is at all significant...
Thanks Nathan. I am seeing about getting a translation done. I will pass it on. It there a time frame for the above Latin? The reference to the sub-unit of 50 men has made me question the meaning of the term seniores. I am now wondering if the Romans have returned to the old centurion command structure of the senior on the right and the junior on the left. This process would also automatically get rid of the prior and posterior century structure. Much too ponder.
Best regards
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Spartan JKM - 03-10-2014
Hello Evan. How are you? Nice to see you so accomplished over here!
Evan, I actually have the pdf of Terence Arnold Coello's work Unit Sizes in the Late Roman Army ; I would be more than happy to get it to you, but I remember procuring it from www.scribd.com some time ago. It's still there for downloading. They give you a free trial for a month, and if you want to stay on as a subscriber it's only $9 a month ($US). Make sure you search under 'documents, not 'books' (even though it's upwards of 190 pages).
Pat Southern's The Roman Army: A Social and Institutional History and The Late Roman Army are rife with all the traditional sources.
Here's a sample for you from Coello, p. 103-104,
[indent]"...One of the first comprehensive attempts to use the Notitia details to calculate the size of the Roman Army and its individual units in c. AD 400 was that of Várady in 1961. His unit size assumptions were notably complicated: he put most legions at 1,000 but "riparian" legions at 3,000; cuneii at 1,200; auxilia palatina at 500; and all other formations at 300. This produced figures for the Eastern Army of 96,300 field army troops and 165,700 frontier soldiers (total = 262,000), and for the Western Army of 123,800 field army troops and 107,200 frontier soldiers (total [with certain other additions] = 262,000). These unconvincingly balanced totals put the whole army at 524,000.
A not dissimilar grand total with unit sizes in the same kind of area was adduced by Jones in 1964. His overall total was some 602,000 (plus 6,000 scholae), divided roughly 6:4 between the East and West (352,000: 250,000). The basis for multiplying up the Notitia lists used by Jones was that field army legions numbered 1,000 each and other field army units 500, while frontier formations were of three sizes - "old" legions at 3,000 each, the few military units at nominal size and other formations all 500 strong..."[/indent]
James K MacKinnon
Late Roman Unit Sizes - antiochus - 03-10-2014
I sent Evan a pdf copy last week.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - antiochus - 03-10-2014
Nathan, a friend is translating the whole section but so far “the sense seems to be that the author is saying that it is a good idea to over-recruit by 50-100 men in order not to have any shortfall by the time all the recruits have been sifted. The passage is in 4th century Latin and has a few usages that seem to be alien to dictionary entries, so it may be necessary to establish what is being said in the section as a whole.”
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Mark Hygate - 03-10-2014
Quote:.............You are Vegetius reincarnated!
That is very flattering, thank you - but more seriously.....
Trying to understand Vegetius is very important indeed and, I hope that when you dissect and critique my 'theory', you will see why I am more than happy to see Vegetius' interpretation of what he'd like a legion to return to/be is based upon completely sound principles, but also a few misunderstandings and, most importantly, that it seems more than likely that the 'Vegetian Legion' never existed.
Quote:...........
Mark Hygate post=352176 Wrote: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 perhaps (although I would not be surprised to know it has happened before) a whole area for a new thread; but is certainly apropos to have here.....
For I have to fundamentally disagree:
- armour is armour however much or little or however constructed, it's just a covering that protects more than clothes
- a shield is just a shield, whatever shape or size
but significantly when it comes to dealing the damage in the first place...
- a sword is just a sword, whether it's a dagger, sax, falchion, gladius, spatha or two-handed greatsword
- a spear is just a spear whether it lengthens to a pike/sarissa/kontos or shortens to an assegai (and there are the interesting mixes of falx, naginata or halberd)
- a javelin (which is the first to go out of fashion almost completely) is just a javelin, whether it's simply a thrown spear, or heavier, or lighter, or smaller (martiobarbuli)
- and finally a ranged weapon be it sling, bow or crossbow are only variations on a theme (as is torsion or even early gunpowder artillery), even when fully developed to either the Mongol compound or the English/Welsh longbow.
All are simple variations, you still have to hit your target at very close range, or annoy/skirmish at slightly longer, whilst protecting yourself against the same.
There is in fact no real reason to fundamentally change battlefield tactics (and all that then links) between the first organised soldiery and the founding of the 'city state' and the 19th century with the introduction of the rifle (and hence range and accuracy). No reason at all.
It is not at all surprising, therefore, that after the post-Roman/Byzantine Dark Age/Medieval period, the reintroduction of the professional armies culminating in the Napoleonic period also reintroduced the same tactics and organisations that the Romans used. The French army particularly shows 6 company (cf century) battalions (cohorts) and the classic Army Corps is a near perfectly re-imagined Consular Army!
So, the Romans seem to have gone back to majority spear-armed (which they never really lost anyway); their sword gets a bit longer; they wear less armour; their shield changes shape? These are tiny blips on a pretty damn near straight line - none of them require or need any changes in basic tactics or organisations.
I'll go further - for any suggestions of a change in organisational structures really should be accompanied by a reason as to why. Steven/Antiochus thinks it may be due to non-Earthly and cultural mathematical reasons; but whilst I don't agree, it is a reason that by-passes the other more obviously logical reasons - which I believe to be tenuous at best for the arms and armour change very little, if at all.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Renatus - 03-10-2014
Quote:Trying to understand Vegetius is very important indeed and, I hope that when you dissect and critique my 'theory', you will see why I am more than happy to see Vegetius' interpretation of what he'd like a legion to return to/be is based upon completely sound principles, but also a few misunderstandings and, most importantly, that it seems more than likely that the 'Vegetian Legion' never existed.You and I are completely as one on this.