the century - fighting unit

[D B Campbell]

It's an interesting thought that, without the explicit statement of "Hyginus", we'd be happy to reckon a centuria at 100 men.

...most unlikely, since we have Polybius' numbers for centuries, earlier,(60), and since there are large numbers of references in the literature to Legions of around 5,000 or more in Imperial times...( the increase in size dates from the Punic wars onward, when the Polybian 4,200 man Legion - also referred to in Livy - increased to 4,800, then 5,000 at Cannae, by 182 BC 5,500, By 169 BC 6,300 on the Macedonian front); 5,000 consisting of 10 cohorts and 60 centuries, less cavalry etc gives us around 4,800 infantry in 60 centuries, again consistent with a nominal strength of 80 per century ( whoops! more evidence.... )In other words, even without Hyginus, we would deduce a figure of 80 per century, 10 contubernium of 8........

All of this is fairly irrelevant, Paul.

You have massaged some figures to "prove" an 80-man century, when the same evidence could just as easily "prove" a 100-man century.

But the only reason you need to show centuries of 80 men is that "Hyginus" says that's the right size. "Hyginus" (as I said before -- twice?) is our only evidence for an 80-man century.

btw I notice that you've sneaked in a reference to a contubernium of 8 men at the end, there. But our only evidence for eight men comprising a contubernium is -- guess who? -- "Hyginus"!

Of course, our old friend Vegetius says there were 10 men in a squad! Naturally, we reject Vegetius, as we always do, because he's sooooo unreliable. :wink:

....as is well known, Vegetius is a mish-mash of earlier material, and like the Curate's egg, is only "good in parts". Here, there is no great 'mystery' - the Five "double centuries" are equivalent in men to ten "normal" ones.....

So your argument is that, when Vegetius says there are ten centuries in the First Cohort, he really meant five centuries?

......the introduction of the "double strength" First cohort is generally attributed to Vespasian, ( after the Civil War) and certainly does not appear before Flavian times....once again, no great 'mystery' here....

On the contrary, there's a huge mystery.
You say that "the double-strength First Cohort is generally attributed to Vespasian" -- by whom?!

The only evidence for a double-strength First Cohort comes from -- guess who? -- "Hyginus" (as I already pointed out above). How does that square with your Vespasianic date? Earlier, you said "Hyginus" was "most likely second century AD, possibly early third"!!

we know for example that the 120 Equites were individually listed on the books of their centuries ( for admin reasons probably), but were housed separately in fortress bases, and were therefore over and above the basic 80 man century.... Headquarters staff and other non-combatant specialists were likely also held on the rolls of centuries, but were housed separately, hence are 'supernumerary'...... Cassius Dio, writing of the third century, gives a cohort strength of 550, which tends to confirm this.....

Again, you have gone far beyond the evidence, Paul.

David Breeze suggested that the equites legionis, who were promoted from the ranks of the legion, remained in their original centuries for administrative purposes.

You say that they "were housed separately". In fact, we have no idea where they were quartered. Other legionary specialists did not get separate accommodation. Why would an eques?
You say that the equites were "over and above the basic 80 man century". In fact, we have no idea whether their places as infantrymen were even filled.
You say that the equites were "supernumerary". That's a theory, not a fact.

And Cassius Dio doesn't "give a cohort strength of 550". But if he did, that would really screw up your 80-man centuries!