02-19-2012, 10:00 AM
What is the source of the idea of the first cohort being of five double strength centuries?
We always seem to repeat this uncritically but it occurs to me that I have never seen where the information comes from, except perhaps from the interpretation of the remains of a number of forts. Can anyone enlighten me?
I have also wondered about the figure of 480 men in a quingenary (supposedly 500 strong unit). The Romans were quite capable of names which accounted for fractions (eg: sesisquiplicarius - a man of one and a half times pay) and I am sure they could have come up with a more accurately descriptive name for a 480 strong unit than 'quingenary' if it really did have only 480 men at full strength. It has often occurred to me though that the figure of 480 is simply the multiplication of the eighty men in a normal century. However, is it not normally believed that the centurio and possibly some or all of the sub-officers (optio, signifer, tessararius and cornicern/tubicern) were supernumerary to the basic number of eighty? This would give figures of between 486 and 510 men. If only the centurio and the two duplicarii were supernumerary this would produce a figure of 498 men - still not five hundred but much closer. Of course, if such figures as beneficiarii were also supernumerary, then could five hundred have been a real paper strength rather that the rather inaccurate approximation for a figure of 480 which we normally assume it is?
Crispvs
We always seem to repeat this uncritically but it occurs to me that I have never seen where the information comes from, except perhaps from the interpretation of the remains of a number of forts. Can anyone enlighten me?
I have also wondered about the figure of 480 men in a quingenary (supposedly 500 strong unit). The Romans were quite capable of names which accounted for fractions (eg: sesisquiplicarius - a man of one and a half times pay) and I am sure they could have come up with a more accurately descriptive name for a 480 strong unit than 'quingenary' if it really did have only 480 men at full strength. It has often occurred to me though that the figure of 480 is simply the multiplication of the eighty men in a normal century. However, is it not normally believed that the centurio and possibly some or all of the sub-officers (optio, signifer, tessararius and cornicern/tubicern) were supernumerary to the basic number of eighty? This would give figures of between 486 and 510 men. If only the centurio and the two duplicarii were supernumerary this would produce a figure of 498 men - still not five hundred but much closer. Of course, if such figures as beneficiarii were also supernumerary, then could five hundred have been a real paper strength rather that the rather inaccurate approximation for a figure of 480 which we normally assume it is?
Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
