07-10-2001, 07:01 AM
Salve,<br>
<br>
That would indeed be nice, but I am not taking the bait and do them myself. The subjects I am currently working on take enough of my spare time as it is to add some legionary histories to the workload. Here is a summary though regarding naming and numbering from the republic to the tetrarchy. The later units will be tackled some other coffee- or lunch break.<br>
<br>
The numbering of units was originally done in the Roman republican army according to the order in which they were levied, the numbers I to IIII (IV) being reserved for the consular armies. Units were raised and disbanded as was deemed fit for the campaigning envisaged with four being the minimum number and emergencies like the second Punic war resulting in an army of over twenty legions called under arms. Units during this time could from time to time be renumbered and it has been suggested that there was a (loose) link between the stations of units and their assigned numeral. In general apart from their number there would be no continuous link or lineage between republican era units of the same numeral named in connection with different campaigns.<br>
<br>
As the Roman republic plunged into civil war after Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon, the various parties each began to raise units according to their own numbering system and numerals began to be duplicated. This period also saw the emergence of unit nicknames, previously absent from the records. Though consuls after the Sullan reforms had lost their function as the main commanders of Rome's armies the customary numbers I to IIII were a popular choice, perhaps for the connotations of legitimacy.<br>
<br>
As the armies of the various civil war parties were merged by Octavianus/Augustus into a new army, some units were disbanded, others were amalgated (those with the <i> cognomina</i> <i> Gemina</i> or <i> Gemella</i>) and others retained. No attempt at all was made to rationalise the currently assigned numbers and nicknames, thought the latter were at this stage rather fluid with some being added and others dropped for no readily apparent reason: for example the <i> legio</i> X <i> Equestris</i> was known a <i> legio</i> X <i> Equestris Gemina</i> before dropping the former epithet.<br>
<br>
In addition to more or less permanently applied <i> cognomina</i> legions could have additional titles conferred, like <i> pia fidelis</i>, dutyful and loyal, for service in civil wars and imperial epithets generally only used during that particular emperor's reign, eg <i> Domitiana</i> (Domitian's own) or <i> Severiana</i>, though the <i> Claudia</i> epithet for VII and XI and <i> Ulpia</i> and <i> Traiana</i> titles of XXX and II were retained afterwards.<br>
<br>
Under the empire various systems and logics were applied to naming and numbering of units, even within the reign of the same emperor. Thus Traianus raised both a <i> legio</i> XXX <i> Ulpia</i> (indicating the existence of 29 other such formations) and a <i> legio</i> II <i> Traiana</i> (thought to be the second unit raised by the emperor). Overall, there seems to have been no guiding principle governing this process. Some units were disbanded and reformed using the same number, though a different <i> cognomen</i>, while others were reformed after a defeat under the same number and name. The legiones I and II <i> Adiutrices</i> were exceptionally rationally numbered, as were the Severan <i> legiones</i> I to III <i> Parthicae</i>. Other numbers and names seem to be picked at random. At times numbering and naming of units was linked to earlier series of units, the <i> legio</i> II and III of Marcus Aurelius that eventally were named <i> Italica</i> following Nero's <i> legio</i> I of the same name and being followed by a IV <i> Italica</i> in the next century.<br>
<br>
The reign of Diocletianus saw a massive increase in the number of legions, but despite the regularisation apparent in many other of the reforms of this emperor and his collegues, the raising of legions followed several coexisting different patterns rather than a common reasoned appraoch. A number of units were raised named after deities (<i> Iovia</i>, <i> Herculia</i>, <i> Martia</i>, <i> Solensis</i>), geography (ao <i> Noricorum</i>, <i> Parthica</i>, <i> Isaura</i>) or dynastical names (<i> Flavia</i>). The numbers of these units were at times following their own series and in other cases complementing those of existing units to which they were brigaded in a provincial army or following up on an existing series, as the tetrarchic <i> Parthicae</i> did.<br>
<br>
As mentioned above, some have suggested a loose pattern between legionary numerals and their stations during the republic. The same has also been observed for some of the imperial era garrisons, where numbers and names seem to fit some pattern, eg the grouping of units with the <i> cognomen</i> <i> Gemina</i> or sequential numbers like I and II, II and three or XIII and XIIII. There by no means seems to have been an overall rational approach in this though and the patterns or systems may be just coincidences.<br>
<br>
For the references used vide the post by Jasper. The <i> RE</i> article is still a very good starting point despite its age.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 7/10/01 9:39:09 am<br></i>
<br>
That would indeed be nice, but I am not taking the bait and do them myself. The subjects I am currently working on take enough of my spare time as it is to add some legionary histories to the workload. Here is a summary though regarding naming and numbering from the republic to the tetrarchy. The later units will be tackled some other coffee- or lunch break.<br>
<br>
The numbering of units was originally done in the Roman republican army according to the order in which they were levied, the numbers I to IIII (IV) being reserved for the consular armies. Units were raised and disbanded as was deemed fit for the campaigning envisaged with four being the minimum number and emergencies like the second Punic war resulting in an army of over twenty legions called under arms. Units during this time could from time to time be renumbered and it has been suggested that there was a (loose) link between the stations of units and their assigned numeral. In general apart from their number there would be no continuous link or lineage between republican era units of the same numeral named in connection with different campaigns.<br>
<br>
As the Roman republic plunged into civil war after Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon, the various parties each began to raise units according to their own numbering system and numerals began to be duplicated. This period also saw the emergence of unit nicknames, previously absent from the records. Though consuls after the Sullan reforms had lost their function as the main commanders of Rome's armies the customary numbers I to IIII were a popular choice, perhaps for the connotations of legitimacy.<br>
<br>
As the armies of the various civil war parties were merged by Octavianus/Augustus into a new army, some units were disbanded, others were amalgated (those with the <i> cognomina</i> <i> Gemina</i> or <i> Gemella</i>) and others retained. No attempt at all was made to rationalise the currently assigned numbers and nicknames, thought the latter were at this stage rather fluid with some being added and others dropped for no readily apparent reason: for example the <i> legio</i> X <i> Equestris</i> was known a <i> legio</i> X <i> Equestris Gemina</i> before dropping the former epithet.<br>
<br>
In addition to more or less permanently applied <i> cognomina</i> legions could have additional titles conferred, like <i> pia fidelis</i>, dutyful and loyal, for service in civil wars and imperial epithets generally only used during that particular emperor's reign, eg <i> Domitiana</i> (Domitian's own) or <i> Severiana</i>, though the <i> Claudia</i> epithet for VII and XI and <i> Ulpia</i> and <i> Traiana</i> titles of XXX and II were retained afterwards.<br>
<br>
Under the empire various systems and logics were applied to naming and numbering of units, even within the reign of the same emperor. Thus Traianus raised both a <i> legio</i> XXX <i> Ulpia</i> (indicating the existence of 29 other such formations) and a <i> legio</i> II <i> Traiana</i> (thought to be the second unit raised by the emperor). Overall, there seems to have been no guiding principle governing this process. Some units were disbanded and reformed using the same number, though a different <i> cognomen</i>, while others were reformed after a defeat under the same number and name. The legiones I and II <i> Adiutrices</i> were exceptionally rationally numbered, as were the Severan <i> legiones</i> I to III <i> Parthicae</i>. Other numbers and names seem to be picked at random. At times numbering and naming of units was linked to earlier series of units, the <i> legio</i> II and III of Marcus Aurelius that eventally were named <i> Italica</i> following Nero's <i> legio</i> I of the same name and being followed by a IV <i> Italica</i> in the next century.<br>
<br>
The reign of Diocletianus saw a massive increase in the number of legions, but despite the regularisation apparent in many other of the reforms of this emperor and his collegues, the raising of legions followed several coexisting different patterns rather than a common reasoned appraoch. A number of units were raised named after deities (<i> Iovia</i>, <i> Herculia</i>, <i> Martia</i>, <i> Solensis</i>), geography (ao <i> Noricorum</i>, <i> Parthica</i>, <i> Isaura</i>) or dynastical names (<i> Flavia</i>). The numbers of these units were at times following their own series and in other cases complementing those of existing units to which they were brigaded in a provincial army or following up on an existing series, as the tetrarchic <i> Parthicae</i> did.<br>
<br>
As mentioned above, some have suggested a loose pattern between legionary numerals and their stations during the republic. The same has also been observed for some of the imperial era garrisons, where numbers and names seem to fit some pattern, eg the grouping of units with the <i> cognomen</i> <i> Gemina</i> or sequential numbers like I and II, II and three or XIII and XIIII. There by no means seems to have been an overall rational approach in this though and the patterns or systems may be just coincidences.<br>
<br>
For the references used vide the post by Jasper. The <i> RE</i> article is still a very good starting point despite its age.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 7/10/01 9:39:09 am<br></i>
