Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
D B Campbell The Roman Army in Detail: The Problem of the First Cohort
#16
Marcel wrote:

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.
 
Despite the evidence, many on this forum oppose the existence of the maniple from the principate onwards. It will be interesting to see if they respond to your viewpoint in the same manner they have responded to me.
 
Marcel wrote:
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.
 
One thing I have learnt about the Roman legion is “not all that glitters is gold.” When are two centuries a maniple, and when are two centuries not a maniple? When I arrived at that question, and went back over my diagrams of the centurion command structure, the whole thing fell into place in accordance with the evidence. It was the last tick in the box, and accomplished only a month ago. It meant I had to go back to the legion of 102 BC, and change every diagram related to the centurions from 102 BC to 410 AD.
 
Marcel wrote:
However, I would agree - as mentioned above - that the maniples have survived much longer than believed,
 
Pacatus (Drepanius, Panegyric of Theodosius I) writes that “the plain was bristling with troops: cavalry sent out to the wings, light troops placed in front of the standards, cohorts arranged by maniples, legions deployed in squares, moving their columns forward at a quick pace, occupied the whole field as far as the eye could see.”
 
Marcel wrote:
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.
 
I believe Vegetius’ source is Cato for the 10 man maniple, which I believe belonged to the pre maniple legion when a century was divided into 10 maniples each of 10 men further organised into two manus each of 5 men, as per Varro and Ovid.
 
Marcel wrote:
The question remains when and why a maniple lost its tactical meaning or usage.
 
I don’t believe it ever did lose its tactical usage.
 
Marcel wrote:
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.
 
My first reference to a vexillation is Dionysius (9 63) for the year 462 BC, “two cohorts did not exceed 1,000 men.” I have references for the republic period as well.
 
Marcel wrote:
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.
 
Unfortunately, I found out the hard way that to understand the evolution of the Roman legion I had to go back to the Servian constitution and work my way to the fall of Rome in 410 AD.
 
Marcel wrote:
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).
 
And some of these same centurions can also have the title of ordines or ordinarius.
 
Marcel wrote:
And meanwhile I provided enough information that they were at a certain time X generically called ordines:
 
I also have provided when the office of the ordo came into being, how it changed, and how it relates to the centurion’s title.
 
Many thanks for the rest of your posting Marcel; it was very informative and rewarding.

Duncan wrote:

There has never been any doubt about Hyginus' statement regarding the number of tents. The manuscript reads: non plus quam octonos papiliones singulae tendunt, which means "they do not pitch more than eight tents for each".
 
I have come across debates about that passage, but putting that aside, I accept what you say. This means the centurion’s tent had the same space as two tents, so must have been a larger tent. Hyginus has the centurion allocated to the same space as the century, but no mention of the tent being larger. However, he does mention the tents of the Praetorians as being larger, so I wonder why he did not make this known about the centurion’s tent. That is the reason behind my curiosity to explore other possibilities in the hope of throwing light on the matter.
Reply
#17
(05-28-2017, 02:36 AM)Steven James Wrote: This means the centurion’s tent had the same space as two tents, so must have been a larger tent. Hyginus has the centurion allocated to the same space as the century, but no mention of the tent being larger. However, he does mention the tents of the Praetorians as being larger, so I wonder why he did not make this known about the centurion’s tent. 


Just being curious, but why would a centurion's tent have to be larger than the other tents? I mean, even if you allocate the same space, would that mean that all the space had to be used up - and therefore need a larger tent? The men and the nco's shared their tent, the centurio probably did not not have to share. I understand that praetorian's tents (in the past) were larger, but that's perhaps just a satus thing (and therefore deserved to be mentioned?), but it need not be related to the tents of the centurio (or those of the upper echelons at that).
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#18
(05-28-2017, 02:36 AM)Steven James Wrote: This means the centurion’s tent had the same space as two tents, so must have been a larger tent. Hyginus has the centurion allocated to the same space as the century, but no mention of the tent being larger. However, he does mention the tents of the Praetorians as being larger, so I wonder why he did not make this known about the centurion’s tent.

There's no mystery about this. Two tents are not pitched in order to leave room for the centurion's tent. Even if this does not take up all the space, as Robert suggests, it nevertheless indicates that his tent is bigger than that occupied by a contubernium and this need not be emphasised. On the other hand, so far as the praetorians are concerned, they are allocated double space and this needs to be explained.

(05-28-2017, 10:21 AM)Robert Vermaat Wrote: Just being curious, but why would a centurion's tent have to be larger than the other tents?

There are a variety of possible reasons. Obviously, there is the issue of prestige. Then, he might have to share with his optio (there does not seem to be any separate provision for him) and, if the century had a signifer, possibly with him as well. There might well have been a couple of slaves in there too. Consider the size of the centurion's quarters in a permanent fortress. They are considerably larger than the rooms occupied by the common soldiers.
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#19
Robert wrote:

Just being curious, but why would a centurion's tent have to be larger than the other tents?
 
When I read the above line, I stopped and realised, I have no idea why I believed the centurion’s tent was larger. I must be getting confused between the object and the ground space.
Reply
#20
(05-28-2017, 02:40 PM)Steven James Wrote: Robert wrote:

Just being curious, but why would a centurion's tent have to be larger than the other tents?
 
When I read the above line, I stopped and realised, I have no idea why I believed the centurion’s tent was larger. I must be getting confused between the object and the ground space.

Point taken. I have had a look at the Latin but this is ambiguous. There is no word for 'tent' in relation to the centurion. The word translated as 'tent' in this context by both De Voto and Gilliver is 'tensionem '. Literally, tensio means 'a stretching, stretching out, extension', so here it could mean, if one thinks of 'stretching' a tent, 'a pitch' or, if one follows the idea of 'extension', 'an extended area' of the same footage (in eadem peditura) as the two tents that would have been occupied by those on guard (eorum papilionum, 'their tents'). All that can be said is that the centurion receives double the area taken up by a single papilio but whether this means that he had a larger tent, a larger area outside his tent (perhaps for his horse, if he had one, or extra baggage) or a combination of the two is, perhaps, a matter for personal interpretation. If pushed, I would probably go for the combination but, for the reasons mentioned above, I would still contend that the centurion's tent was likely to be bigger than a normal papilio.
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#21
Not wanting to dip my toes into an already absorbing debate but the size of the centurion's papilio raises an interesting point: if the 'footprint' of his tent area is twice the size allotted to the 8-man tent section, why does it follow that his tent is larger? Surely, one man occupying the same size tent 'owns' more social space, as it were, than do 8 men inside the same sized tent.

In other words, the internal space of the papilio is allotted to the centurion with all the status and additional equipment which comes with that. The 'extension' is more to do with his military grade and social position. The larger footprint of the same size tent would then be accounted for by the horse or baggage or attendant slave, perhaps. The centurion doesn't need a larger tent per se, I think.
Francis Hagan

The Barcarii
Reply
#22
Michael wrote:

All that can be said is that the centurion receives double the area taken up by a single papilio but whether this means that he had a larger tent, a larger area outside his tent (perhaps for his horse, if he had one, or extra baggage) or a combination of the two is, perhaps, a matter for personal interpretation.
 
Hyginus does allow 15 feet for weapons and 8 feet for pack animals, so I think that is covered. With the centurion having the space for 2 tents, every century in a legion can accommodate billeting the veterans (evocati). Hyginus mentions the veterans being billeted on the sides of the praetorium, but I believe is there are two veteran cohorts attached to a legion, the second 480 man veteran cohort equates to 60 tents each of 8 men. By distributing the 60 veteran tents amongst a legion, each century in the legion is allocated one tent of veterans, thereby making a century have 10 tents, 8 tents for the legionaries, 1 tent for the veterans and 1 tent for the centurion, which I personally believe is also for the optio.
Reply
#23
(05-29-2017, 05:37 AM)Steven James Wrote: 1 tent for the veterans and 1 tent for the centurion, which I personally believe is also for the optio.

Could be. There would also be some administrative tasks (perhaps+staff?) I think?
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#24
(05-29-2017, 05:37 AM)Steven James Wrote: Hyginus does allow 15 feet for weapons and 8 feet for pack animals

You have been misled by De Voto's translation. If you look across the page to the Latin, you will see that Hyginus allocates 5 feet for weapons and 9 feet for pack animals.

(05-29-2017, 05:37 AM)Steven James Wrote: I believe is there are two veteran cohorts attached to a legion

Is this a personal belief or is there evidence for it?

(05-29-2017, 05:37 AM)Steven James Wrote: thereby making a century have 10 tents, 8 tents for the legionaries, 1 tent for the veterans and 1 tent for the centurion

Hyginus seems to be quite clear that the evocati are placed with the primipilares and the praetorian cohorts and that the extra space in the centurial lines is for the centurion alone.
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#25
Michael wrote:

You have been misled by De Voto's translation. If you look across the page to the Latin, you will see that Hyginus allocates 5 feet for weapons and 9 feet for pack animals.
 
What I wanted to bring up was space for the pack animals was mentioned by Hyginus.
 
Michael wrote:
Is this a personal belief or is there evidence for it?
 
I should have written “IF there at two veterans, and not IS there two veterans. Yes it is my personal belief, but not without foundation.
 
Michael wrote:
Hyginus seems to be quite clear that the evocati are placed with the primipilares and the praetorian cohorts and that the extra space in the centurial lines is for the centurion alone.
 
Hyginus does not say how many. Plus CIL VIII 18065 and 2 others I have found show veterans attached to a specific legion.

Conclusion is a double first cohort only existed as a camp billeting arrangement.
Reply
#26
So, the answers from Stefan Zehetner regarding the raised question:

Question/Statement: [...] A conclusion obviously reached because Vegetius does not list the triarius posterior in his first cohort. [...]
ad 1) Vegetius does not list a triarius posterior, but in fact, he lists two primi pilus. In his listing, the primi ordines from top to bottom are: primus pilus, primus hastatus, princeps primae cohortis, secundus hastatus and triarius prior. In fact the triarius prior is equivalent to primus pilus. But as CIL VIII 18072 indicates, the listing of Vegetius is not right or has misinterpreted his sources.

Question/Statement: [...] Spurnius Lingustinus was selected as centurion of the tenth hastatus ordo. That is important and should not be left out. [...]
ad 2) Spurnius Lingustinus is in fact listed in the tenth ordo of hastati. But in Republican times the term "ordo" is to understand as "manipulus" as this was the organizational subunit of a legion. As Spurnius Lingustinus was enlisted as centurion for the first time in this case, we have to believe, that he was not the leading centurion of the maniple and therefore was a subaltern centurio posterior.

Question/Statement: [...] No it is not the tenth maniple, Livy states the 10th ordo, and had Spurnius Lingustinus been in charge of the 10th ordo during the principate he would have had the title of centurion ordinarius. [...]
ad 3) same as "ad 2)" + The term "ordinarius" is used for the term "centurio" in the third century AD. A centurio ordinarius is not known in Republican times.

Question/Statement: [...] But later Stefan mentions that at Zama, Scipio Africanus grouped his legions in cohorts. [...]
ad 4) Scipio Africanus introduced the cohort for his military operations in Spain. That he also used this organization at Zama I am referring to the greek terminus "speira", which Polybios first used for manipulus, which he also calls "tagma" or "semaia". In his descriptions of Scipios military operations, he uses the term "speira" exclusively for the term "cohors". In imperial times the term "speira" is also used for "cohors", secured by papyrological sources.

Question/Statement: [...] 10 full cohorts each of 10 centuries will equal 100 centuries to a legion. [...] (this was related to the question whether a cohort could consist of 10 centuries)
ad 5) There is no proof, that all cohorts of a legion had 10 centuries. I am sure, it was possible, but a legion never was organized in such manners. There are even only few sources, which indicate a 10 centuries strong first cohort. (Or a 5 double-strengthended centuries first cohort.) What is to see is, that, if there was a strengthened first cohort, there were in fact as many centurions as there were centuries. A 10 centuries first cohort plus nine 6 centuries cohorts make 64 centuries throughout a legion. CIL VIII 18065 lists exactly 64 centurions (only one of these is an evocatus). Even Vegetius proofs this organization. His cohorts all were made up of 5 centuries, only the first was organized in 10 commanded by fife primi ordines. But Vegetius states, that there are 55 centurions in each legion. Ten in the first cohort and fife in each of the other nine cohorts. (Veg. Epitoma rei militaris II 8, 1-9.)

Question/Statement: [...] How about more investigation? How about throwing out the theory? ... How about instead of claiming the maniple was abolished by Marius, you work with the primary sources, and when they say maniple after the time of Marius, you go with it. ... The primary sources do not make the claim that Marius abolished the maniple [...]
ad 6) In fact the term "manipulus" was used in imperial times. But indicating old organizational charts, it was only used in literary sources, where they simply were used as stylistic devices. Primary sources do not indicate any manipuli in imperial times any longer. There are terms from the 2nd century AD calling "commanipularius" which stands for the comrade or the buddy. It is used aside the term "contubernalis". Some sources (SHA, Ammianus Marcellinus, Vegetius) claim, that the term "manipulus" was used for the "contubernium", the tent party. I am planing an essay on this terminus.

Not sure if all answers are satisfying, but I only give the answers as they were sent to me. From my side I have said everything.
Concerning the tent-question I want suggest to take a closer look at some illuminated manuscripts of the time in question, but also images of the late antiquity are quite interestig. There are some useful references, albeit a comparision is always difficult. παπυλεωνα appears indeed in several descriptions, and papilio or the papilium is also described by Hyginus ... ibid §1: Nunc papilonum tensionem cohortium; also shown by several images.
But rigde tents are also shown many times. I haven't compared the sizes of those tents yet, this could be very interesting.
Reply
#27
(05-29-2017, 12:11 PM)Steven James Wrote: CIL VIII 18065 and 2 others I have found show veterans attached to a specific legion.
 
 

CIL VIII 18065 lists the primi ordines and centurions of Leg III Augusta plus one evocatus, so I am not sure that that helps very much. Can you let me know the references for the other two inscriptions, please?
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#28
(05-29-2017, 05:24 AM)Longovicium Wrote: The larger footprint of the same size tent would then be accounted for by the horse or baggage or attendant slave, perhaps. The centurion doesn't need a larger tent per se, I think.

Might it also be that the centurion's tent was higher than those of the milites? If the centurion had a tent with standing room inside it (for meetings/admin, perhaps?), the guy-ropes would need to be longer and the tent would therefore take up more ground.

Otherwise, there would perhaps be space set aside for the calones attached to the century, unless they were left to huddle inside the contubernia tents?
Nathan Ross
Reply
#29
(05-30-2017, 08:48 AM)Nathan Ross Wrote:
(05-29-2017, 05:24 AM)Longovicium Wrote: The larger footprint of the same size tent would then be accounted for by the horse or baggage or attendant slave, perhaps. The centurion doesn't need a larger tent per se, I think.

Might it also be that the centurion's tent was higher than those of the milites? If the centurion had a tent with standing room inside it (for meetings/admin, perhaps?), the guy-ropes would need to be longer and the tent would therefore take up more ground.

Otherwise, there would perhaps be space set aside for the calones attached to the century, unless they were left to huddle inside the contubernia tents?

That seems like the most convincing explanation so far. Do we have any descriptions of centurions conducting business in their tents (or quarters in permanent camp) ?
Timothee.
Reply
#30
(05-30-2017, 04:02 PM)Timus Wrote: Do we have any descriptions of centurions conducting business in their tents (or quarters in permanent camp) ?

As far as I know there's no direct evidence for admin or dedicated admin staff below cohort or legion level. There's a note from Bu Njem (95) from a decurion to one of his horsemen (auxiliary) telling him to go and pick up a tessera at some place or other.

Other than that, the signifer of the century presumably attended to the admin tasks, and would have passed his notes on unit strength, pay etc upwards. But centurions were supposedly literate men, and it's not too far of a stretch to assume they had various tasks relating to written work, or even leisure - Martialis (11.3) imagines a centurion reading poetry on campaign, 'beneath the martial standards... in the Getic frost'!

(refs from Michael J Taylor, 'Records on bark, sherd and papryus': Ancient Warfare Special 2010)




(05-24-2017, 01:13 PM)Marcel Frederik Schwarze Wrote: There ist also another very good conclusion of Stefan Zehetner about the inscription CIL VIII 18065, which mentions more than 6 centurions in several cohorts and just 5 centurios in coh. IX...

...although there was surely a standardized size for new deployed troops, it might not always be possible to keep it in practice.

This seems quite plausible. I suppose the extra centurions in the cohorts with seven or eight may have been supernumerarii, but surely one of them would have been sent to coh.IX to make up the numbers! Unless, perhaps, one century of that cohort had been sent elsewhere...


(05-24-2017, 11:09 AM)Marcel Frederik Schwarze Wrote: some indication that a veteran vexilla was also fixed part to some cohorts during the time in question, forming its own centuria. (CIL V 4903: vexillarius / veter(anorum) leg(ionis) IIII )...probably commanded by a centurio in the rank of a traditional named triarius.

Do you mean that the veterans formed a century within the first cohort? There are a few inscriptions to men apparently leading all or part of the vexilla veteranorum, but the ranks appear varied:

CIL 03, 02817 - (centurio) vete/ranorum / leg(ionis) IIII Mac(edonicae)
CIL 10, 03369 - (centurio) veteran(us)
CIL 05, 07005 - curator veteranorum / leg(ionis) IIII Macedonic[a]e
CIL 05, 05832 - veteranus sign[ifer] / aquilifer leg(ionis) V / curator vete[ran(orum)]
AE 1941, 105 and AE 1995, 392 - praef(ectus) veteranorum
AE 1926, 00082 - pr]aef(ecto) veteran(orum) / [ leg(ionis) 3] XII
AE 2000, 555 - praef(ecto) ve[ter(anorum?)] / [v]eterani v[exilli(?)]

These all look quite early, and the only dateable ones, I think, are Tiberian. The last three seem to have been a grade in the pre-Claudian equestrian cursus, suggesting a veteran unit of around cohort size, perhaps.
Nathan Ross
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The AD33 crucifixion detail in Judea jkaler48 104 22,768 07-12-2012, 03:57 AM
Last Post: Crispvs
  Xanten gates-need info with more detail Arahne 2 1,337 07-14-2007, 03:43 PM
Last Post: Praefectusclassis

Forum Jump: