05-27-2017, 10:08 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2017, 12:32 AM by Marcel Frederik Schwarze.)
Dear Steven,
first of all I belong to the group who likes the idea of long survived maniples and its tactical usage, based on the tales of Caesar, Tacitus and Josephus.
And although I like your enthusiasm, however, the topic about the maniples has been discussed to its end here in this forum and all you say (unfortunately without significant sources) is not new to most of us. And in german we say that there is no more meat on the bones.
The camp order of Hyginus is completely based upon two opposite standing centuriae. In other words, not said by Hyginus, this is called a manipulus. That a manipulus is based on centuries and tent-communities (contubernales) should be clear.
However, I would agree - as mentioned above - that the maniples have survived much longer than believed, which is also supported by some epigraphical sources:
CIL VI 222: (centuriae) suae fecit volentib(us) manipul(aribus) suis quor(um) (from 111 AD); CIL VI 30881: (centurio) de suo dedit manipularibus suis / in Genium centuriae suae (118 AD);
Also the continuity of camp building through the entire imperial time based on the maniples (paired barracks) described by Mr. Webster.
ibid, The Roman Imperial Army, p. 137.
Vegetius reports that the manipulus is commanded by a caput contuberni, which is the file, a mess or contubernium of 10 men each (or 11 with the leader) - at least in his legion. (Veg. II 8, 9 and 12). Since the number of tent-communities or files differs from source to source, his number could be correct by considering that his description of a legion is also just a snapshot like all the other sources as well. I know numbers from primary sources of 7, 8, 10 (or 11 from Vegetius), even up to 16. In the latter case it is most likely just a διλοχία, two files, bonded adminstratively together.
Vegetius seems to regard manipulus as a diminutive of manus. That the term manipulus is sometimes used to point out an undefined group is also described in several other sources (Varro de ling. lat 5.88 and 6.85.) or Ovid Fasti 3.118, the latter source identifies manipulus as a handful soliers.
The question remains when and why a maniple lost its tactical meaning or usage. AT the end it was just providing an administrative basis for camp building and/or reflecting the graduation of officers.
I would say it has begun with the segmentation of legions and the creation of vexillations, which was indeed carried out during the imperial time. In my forthcoming book I explain the exact way when the vexillations appeared. Although my work is related to the warfare of the late 5th and 6th century, this evolution is important to understand the very late roman tactics and its regiments. Sometime during the time of the Principate, the romans stopped to support campaigns by legionary cohorts. Until a certain date one can observe that legions were supported by cohorts from other legions, but they weren't vexillations. Later the new system of vexillations or detachements was introduced. It is this time when professional auxillaries of foreigners were recruited as well, fighting in a very roman fashion, just organized in cohorts, not maniples.
And I want repeat myself once more. I like the idea that the maniples as tactical units have survived until the late antiquity, but then we should be able to put some new findings or sources on table, and not repeating the same old arguments again and warm up the old cheese from yesterday.
Also, it should be clear from inscriptions, gravestones and epigraphical findings that all centurios in all cohorts belonged to one of the 6 mentioned groups (2x hastati; 2x principes, 2xpili/triarii).
e.g. CIL III 195: (coh) II pr(inceps) post.; CIL VII 112: cohor(te) VI hast. pri(or); CIL III n.102: coh(orte) V princeps posterior (and at least 50 other inscriptions could be named here). And meanwhile I provided enough information that they were at a certain time X generically called ordines: The officers of the order (in the meaning of group, troop or centuria). The primi ordines were the first officers. That the term "ordines" (without "primi") also was used to name the rest of the centurions within the legion is probably also a result of the segmentation of the legions, albeit debatable. Or the concept changed from a colloquial use to an official technical term after some years or decades.
That the primi ordines weren't initially equal to other centurions (other ordinari) is shown in several inscriptions when they are contrasted to each other:
CIL VIII 2532: vobis primi ordines et centuriones agiles; CIL VIII 18042: primi ordines et centuriones; CIL VIII 18065: primi ordines et centuriones et evocatus
Joachim Marquardt speculated that they were initially referred to the first centurions of the triarii only, that is primi pilus prior, secundus pilus prior etc.
...ibid, Römische Staatsverwaltung, vol.2, p.360-361 (including many good primary sources)
But in the meantime inscriptions were found, proving that the primi ordines referring to the members of the 1st cohort only - at least in the late 2nd century.
see TADEUSZS ARNOWSKI, PRIMI ORDINES ET CENTURIONES LEGIONIS I ITALICAE UND EINE DEDIKATION AN SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS AUS NOVAE IN NIEDERMOESIEN. In: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 95 (1993) 205–219, esp. p.209
Vegetius starts to call all centurions as Ordinarii.
ibid. II §7: Ordinarii dicuntur qui in proelio (quia primi sunt) ordines ducunt
So, the question about the primi ordines is one issue, the other question is about officers just called ordines. And here Vegetius is confirmed epigraphically as well (once more).
AE 1989, 00641: ... Val(erius) Castus centur(io) ord(inarius) leg(ionis) I Iov(iae) Scyt(hicae) una cum Val(erio) Valeriano centen(ario) so cero suo posuit
The only thing I was able to prove in the strategicon, and speaking greek is an advantage to understand it, is that the files of 16 soldiers were subdivided by two groups of contuberni. The first 8 men belonged to the group called primani and the other 8 men were called secundi. This stands in the good roman tradition that groups are bonded to each other. Perhaps a small rest of the old system. They were always ready to move out of the bigger formation to be separated - and the strategicon even gives the latin command for that.
Finally they were fighting side by side as two different groups within the ad-hoc created tagma. But I wouldn't speak here from a system of maniples. Or was it?
first of all I belong to the group who likes the idea of long survived maniples and its tactical usage, based on the tales of Caesar, Tacitus and Josephus.
And although I like your enthusiasm, however, the topic about the maniples has been discussed to its end here in this forum and all you say (unfortunately without significant sources) is not new to most of us. And in german we say that there is no more meat on the bones.
The camp order of Hyginus is completely based upon two opposite standing centuriae. In other words, not said by Hyginus, this is called a manipulus. That a manipulus is based on centuries and tent-communities (contubernales) should be clear.
However, I would agree - as mentioned above - that the maniples have survived much longer than believed, which is also supported by some epigraphical sources:
CIL VI 222: (centuriae) suae fecit volentib(us) manipul(aribus) suis quor(um) (from 111 AD); CIL VI 30881: (centurio) de suo dedit manipularibus suis / in Genium centuriae suae (118 AD);
Also the continuity of camp building through the entire imperial time based on the maniples (paired barracks) described by Mr. Webster.
ibid, The Roman Imperial Army, p. 137.
Vegetius reports that the manipulus is commanded by a caput contuberni, which is the file, a mess or contubernium of 10 men each (or 11 with the leader) - at least in his legion. (Veg. II 8, 9 and 12). Since the number of tent-communities or files differs from source to source, his number could be correct by considering that his description of a legion is also just a snapshot like all the other sources as well. I know numbers from primary sources of 7, 8, 10 (or 11 from Vegetius), even up to 16. In the latter case it is most likely just a διλοχία, two files, bonded adminstratively together.
Vegetius seems to regard manipulus as a diminutive of manus. That the term manipulus is sometimes used to point out an undefined group is also described in several other sources (Varro de ling. lat 5.88 and 6.85.) or Ovid Fasti 3.118, the latter source identifies manipulus as a handful soliers.
The question remains when and why a maniple lost its tactical meaning or usage. AT the end it was just providing an administrative basis for camp building and/or reflecting the graduation of officers.
I would say it has begun with the segmentation of legions and the creation of vexillations, which was indeed carried out during the imperial time. In my forthcoming book I explain the exact way when the vexillations appeared. Although my work is related to the warfare of the late 5th and 6th century, this evolution is important to understand the very late roman tactics and its regiments. Sometime during the time of the Principate, the romans stopped to support campaigns by legionary cohorts. Until a certain date one can observe that legions were supported by cohorts from other legions, but they weren't vexillations. Later the new system of vexillations or detachements was introduced. It is this time when professional auxillaries of foreigners were recruited as well, fighting in a very roman fashion, just organized in cohorts, not maniples.
And I want repeat myself once more. I like the idea that the maniples as tactical units have survived until the late antiquity, but then we should be able to put some new findings or sources on table, and not repeating the same old arguments again and warm up the old cheese from yesterday.
Also, it should be clear from inscriptions, gravestones and epigraphical findings that all centurios in all cohorts belonged to one of the 6 mentioned groups (2x hastati; 2x principes, 2xpili/triarii).
e.g. CIL III 195: (coh) II pr(inceps) post.; CIL VII 112: cohor(te) VI hast. pri(or); CIL III n.102: coh(orte) V princeps posterior (and at least 50 other inscriptions could be named here). And meanwhile I provided enough information that they were at a certain time X generically called ordines: The officers of the order (in the meaning of group, troop or centuria). The primi ordines were the first officers. That the term "ordines" (without "primi") also was used to name the rest of the centurions within the legion is probably also a result of the segmentation of the legions, albeit debatable. Or the concept changed from a colloquial use to an official technical term after some years or decades.
That the primi ordines weren't initially equal to other centurions (other ordinari) is shown in several inscriptions when they are contrasted to each other:
CIL VIII 2532: vobis primi ordines et centuriones agiles; CIL VIII 18042: primi ordines et centuriones; CIL VIII 18065: primi ordines et centuriones et evocatus
Joachim Marquardt speculated that they were initially referred to the first centurions of the triarii only, that is primi pilus prior, secundus pilus prior etc.
...ibid, Römische Staatsverwaltung, vol.2, p.360-361 (including many good primary sources)
But in the meantime inscriptions were found, proving that the primi ordines referring to the members of the 1st cohort only - at least in the late 2nd century.
see TADEUSZS ARNOWSKI, PRIMI ORDINES ET CENTURIONES LEGIONIS I ITALICAE UND EINE DEDIKATION AN SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS AUS NOVAE IN NIEDERMOESIEN. In: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 95 (1993) 205–219, esp. p.209
Vegetius starts to call all centurions as Ordinarii.
ibid. II §7: Ordinarii dicuntur qui in proelio (quia primi sunt) ordines ducunt
So, the question about the primi ordines is one issue, the other question is about officers just called ordines. And here Vegetius is confirmed epigraphically as well (once more).
AE 1989, 00641: ... Val(erius) Castus centur(io) ord(inarius) leg(ionis) I Iov(iae) Scyt(hicae) una cum Val(erio) Valeriano centen(ario) so cero suo posuit
The only thing I was able to prove in the strategicon, and speaking greek is an advantage to understand it, is that the files of 16 soldiers were subdivided by two groups of contuberni. The first 8 men belonged to the group called primani and the other 8 men were called secundi. This stands in the good roman tradition that groups are bonded to each other. Perhaps a small rest of the old system. They were always ready to move out of the bigger formation to be separated - and the strategicon even gives the latin command for that.
Finally they were fighting side by side as two different groups within the ad-hoc created tagma. But I wouldn't speak here from a system of maniples. Or was it?
