Posts: 273
Threads: 21
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
0
Hi all,
I would like to know when the first milliary cohorts pop up in the Roman army (and I'm not talking about the double first cohort of the legions). Does this only start with Trajan or sooner/later?
Greets,
Hans
Flandria me genuit, tenet nunc Roma
Posts: 3,616
Threads: 130
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation:
52
Interesting question. G.L. Cheesman (if I remember correctly) had assumed that milliary regiments existed all along, but the first sign of one -- the ala Flavia in Syria around AD 81 -- was suspiciously late if it had been an Augustan creation ... and early, we could add, if it was a Trajanic one! (See Ancient Warfare III.3 for some comments on alae milliariae in Hyginus.)
Josephus (BJ 3.67) mentions milliary cohorts in the context of AD 67. And they start to crop up on diplomas in the 80s (I think -- I haven't checked this). But you can be sure, at any rate, that they weren't invented by Trajan.
(David Kennedy has an article about this in Z.P.E. 50 (1983) -- unfortunately not available on-line.)
Posts: 273
Threads: 21
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
0
Thanks for the info, Duncan
Hans
Flandria me genuit, tenet nunc Roma
Posts: 81
Threads: 8
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
The ALA AVGVSTA GALLORVM PETRIANA was present in Britain in 71, but was raised around the turn of the first century. http://www.roman-britain.org/military/alapet.htm
R. Cornelius hadrianus, Guvnor of Homunculum, the 15mm scale Colonia. Proof that size does not matter.
R. Neil Harrison
Posts: 4,887
Threads: 163
Joined: Aug 2002
Reputation:
0
Following the Batavian revolt, Vespasian formed the Batavi into milliary strength cohorts in 70AD
Posts: 111
Threads: 3
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
Quote:Interesting question. G.L. Cheesman (if I remember correctly) had assumed that milliary regiments existed all along, but the first sign of one -- the ala Flavia in Syria around AD 81 -- was suspiciously late if it had been an Augustan creation ... and early, we could add, if it was a Trajanic one! (See Ancient Warfare III.3 for some comments on alae milliariae in Hyginus.)
Josephus (BJ 3.67) mentions milliary cohorts in the context of AD 67. And they start to crop up on diplomas in the 80s (I think -- I haven't checked this). But you can be sure, at any rate, that they weren't invented by Trajan.
(David Kennedy has an article about this in Z.P.E. 50 (1983) -- unfortunately not available on-line.)
I didn't know about the Kennedy article (thanks!). However, Holder's argument on this (Holder, P.A. (1980), Studies in the Auxilia of the Roman Army from Augustus to Trajan, BAR Int. 70, Oxford, 5ff.) is that Josephus was in error or was exaggerating the size of the cohorts, he also points to the fact that Josephus' account appears to confuse cohorts with cohortes equitata. It might be worth considering that, given their appearance in the Flavian period, that Vespasian was experimenting with amalgamated units during the Jewish campaign, but that's speculation for another day
As you say, the first evidence for milliary units from diplomas is from the 80s, and I don't know of any epigraphic evidence which contradicts this (inscriptions are, of course, often rather hard to date precisely, but Spaul's survey is quite helpful on this question), which strongly suggests that these units didn't appear before then (I seem to remember Holder paralleling this development with the increase in the size of the first legionnary cohort, but I don't have the reference).
As has been pointed out, some milliary units do predate the Flavian period, but are assumed (almost certainly correctly) to have been normal size cohorts/alae that were later increased in size (either by draft or by amalgamation with other units).
blue skies
Tom
Posts: 3,616
Threads: 130
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation:
52
Quote:Holder's argument on this is that Josephus was in error or was exaggerating the size of the cohorts, he also points to the fact that Josephus' account appears to confuse cohorts with cohortes equitata.
Possible. But Kennedy would reply, where did Josephus get the idea that cohorts could be milliary?
Quote:... but Spaul's survey is quite helpful on this question ...
Handle with care. There are a few oddities in his (largely very useful) listings. I've found it safest to double-check his epigraphic readings.
Quote:As has been pointed out, some milliary units do predate the Flavian period, but are assumed (almost certainly correctly) to have been normal size cohorts/alae that were later increased in size (either by draft or by amalgamation with other units).
Yup -- it would seem so.
Posts: 111
Threads: 3
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
Quote:popularis:1lfr9tb1 Wrote:Holder's argument on this is that Josephus was in error or was exaggerating the size of the cohorts, he also points to the fact that Josephus' account appears to confuse cohorts with cohortes equitata.
Possible. But Kennedy would reply, where did Josephus get the idea that cohorts could be milliary?
I haven't read Kennedy's argument I know that Saddington (Saddington, D.B. (1970), 'The Roman "Auxilia" in Tacitus, Josephus and other early Imperial Writers', Acta Classica 13 (1970) 89-124., 117ff. - there's a similar analysis in Saddington's (1982) 'Auxilia') seems to think that Jospehus had a relatively sound grasp of technical military language, although (as with Tacitus) that he had a tendency to use descriptive rather than technical language to refer to the auxilia (e.g. "2000" horse, "light armed troops"). I haven't spent that much time with Jospehus, and I don't have Saddington's article in front of me (the above is from notes). As a general point, I would say that it is often difficult - and sometimes misleading - to use the more descriptive passages in literary texts to classify troops, or, in my case, officers, into their 'technical' Roman equivalents. Of course, the passage in question does use the technical "speira" to discuss the cohorts, so this argument gets a bit weaker...
Strictly off the top of my head, I'd say that Josephus would have been well acquianted with the Roman military system, and, of course, with Vespasian's reforms. If he was implying the existence of milliary units, then maybe this is a reflection of a Vespasianic initiative which, when he came to power, was formalised across the army. It may also be, as Spaul argues, that this is just an erroneous anachronism; the passage (tôn de speirôn hai deka men eichon ana chilious pezous) does seem rather precise for that though. However, it's worth repeating Holder's caveat that Jospehus errs in his next statement (hai de loipai dekatreis ana hexakosious men pezous, hippeis de hekaton eikosin), which seems to imply that a cohors equitata was 600 infantry plus 120 cavalry, rather than - as we normally assume - 600 men, 120 of whom were cavalry. This error (if it is an error) would make it difficult to be sure that, when Josephus says that 10 of the cohorts contained a thousand men, that he meant that they were milliary cohorts, especially given that a milliary cohort normally contained 800 men (unless the normal greek translation of cohors milliaria used 'chilioi', of course - I can't find anything about that in my notes, even from Devijver's work on greek terminology, so apologies if I look like an idiot here).
I'm also unsure if the titles for units on diplomas reflected the name of the unit in which the individual mostly served, or the unit from which he was discharged. I'd assume that if an individual was discharged from an ala milliaria, then this is what the diploma would say, even if it had only been an ala milliaria for a short time, but if this isn't the case then we'd need to take some years from the evidence of the diplomas.
Quote:popularis:1lfr9tb1 Wrote:... but Spaul's survey is quite helpful on this question ...
Handle with care. There are a few oddities in his (largely very useful) listings. I've found it safest to double-check his epigraphic readings.
Agreed. I found his "Cohors" rather better than his "Ala" (and the naval volume is somewhat disappointing).
Quote:popularis:1lfr9tb1 Wrote:As has been pointed out, some milliary units do predate the Flavian period, but are assumed (almost certainly correctly) to have been normal size cohorts/alae that were later increased in size (either by draft or by amalgamation with other units).
Yup -- it would seem so.
I look forward to reading Kennedy's argument. Hopefully that should clarify a few things...
Posts: 3,616
Threads: 130
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation:
52
Quote:... However, it's worth repeating Holder's caveat that Jospehus errs in his next statement (hai de loipai dekatreis ana hexakosious men pezous, hippeis de hekaton eikosin), which seems to imply that a cohors equitata was 600 infantry plus 120 cavalry, rather than - as we normally assume - 600 men, 120 of whom were cavalry. This error (if it is an error) ...
Precisely my thoughts. It is curious that he specifies these figures, drawn (one imagines) from Vespasian's commentaries (or similar). Perhaps he is quite right, and these units, granted that they are most definitely on a war footing, could achieve these levels of manpower.
Otherwise (and, like you, I am writing off the top of my head, so this idea is definitely half-baked), he has simply noted the numbers of sub-units (most conveniently indicated by the numbers of centurions and decurions) and multiplied them up (6 centurions = 600 men, 4 decurions = 120 men). :?
Quote:I'm also unsure if the titles for units on diplomas reflected the name of the unit in which the individual mostly served, or the unit from which he was discharged. I'd assume that if an individual was discharged from an ala milliaria, then this is what the diploma would say, even if it had only been an ala milliaria for a short time, ...
Agreed. Otherwise the system would be quite unworkable. The diplomas, remember, list those units which happen to be discharging men on the same day. They are named with their official nomenclature on that day (with some annoying omissions and abbreviations ).
|