the century - fighting unit

[Paullus Scipio]

Lambaesis inscription referring to list of optiones: C.I.L. viii, 18072

Papyrus from Egypt: P.Gen,lat.I,v.verso - first published by Nicole and Morel "Archives militaires du Premier siecle"( Geneva 1900), and many times since. The estimate ( because the part is missing) of 58-60 aprox for the century's original actual strength is by A. von Premerstein.

It's an interesting thought that, without the explicit statement of "Hyginus", we'd be happy to reckon a centuria at 100 men.

...most unlikely, since we have Polybius' numbers for centuries, earlier,(60), and since there are large numbers of references in the literature to Legions of around 5,000 or more in Imperial times...( the increase in size dates from the Punic wars onward, when the Polybian 4,200 man Legion - also referred to in Livy - increased to 4,800, then 5,000 at Cannae, by 182 BC 5,500, By 169 BC 6,300 on the Macedonian front); 5,000 consisting of 10 cohorts and 60 centuries, less cavalry etc gives us around 4,800 infantry in 60 centuries, again consistent with a nominal strength of 80 per century ( whoops! more evidence.... )In other words, even without Hyginus, we would deduce a figure of 80 per century, 10 contubernium of 8........
One should again emphasise that these are nominal figures....battle casualties, illness/sickness, desertion and natural wastage could reduce a Legion to half or less of it's nominal strength ( e.g. Caesar's 9 Legions at Pharsalus averaged 2,500 each and the 82 cohorts averaged 280 each...Pompey's 110 cohorts, whose army was better fed than Caesar's, averaged around 400 srong.....)

Five centuries? "Hyginus" gives us no clue on this. It's Vegetius who writes that "the ten centuries of the first cohort were commanded by five centurions" (Mil. 2.8 ). Notice "ten centuries"!

....as is well known, Vegetius is a mish-mash of earlier material, and like the Curate's egg, is only "good in parts". Here, there is no great 'mystery' - the Five "double centuries" are equivalent in men to ten "normal" ones.....

Tacitus clearly thought that were six centuries -- during the events of AD 14, the mutineers were given 60 lashes, "being equal to the number of centurions" (Ann. 1.32); i.e. 10 cohorts of 6 centuries in the legion.......There is an interesting snippet from Tacitus which, as far as I am aware, has never aroused scholarly interest. After the second battle at Cremona, the Seventh Legion was found to have lost "six centurions of the First Order" (Hist. 3.22: occisi sex primorum ordinum centuriones); i.e. six of the primi ordines.

....and Tacitus was right, for that time ! ( )
CINNA wrote:-

So while some report might give 480 for a cohort other suggestions are up to 600 (or Vegetius 555) including the personel which is counted as part of the organizational structure of the cohort which don't count as pure fighting troops? So this might explain different numbers. I remember a modern example from my own service in the army where our company recieved new recruits twice a year, once a full contingent, once only soldiers for "system duty" which were officially members of my company but were serving all their time (except for the first few weeks) as guards for the base and cleaning personnel, battailon drivers, waiters, cooks. So the organizational strength of the companies was higher than the actual fighting strength.

....this is likely correct; we know for example that the 120 Equites were individually listed on the books of their centuries ( for admin reasons probably), but were housed separately in fortress bases, and were therefore over and above the basic 80 man century.... Headquarters staff and other non-combatant specialists were likely also held on the rolls of centuries, but were housed separately, hence are 'supernumerary'...... Cassius Dio, writing of the third century, gives a cohort strength of 550, which tends to confirm this.....

P.S.......some more evidence for 80 man centuries! :wink: 8)
An inscription from Coptos in Egypt (iii.6627) describes the composition of a vexillatio drawn from three Alae, and seven cohorts and gives numbers that work out at 76 per century on average. G.L. Cheesman called this "...probably the most valuable evidence which we possess, clearly indicates centuries of 80..."

[antiochus]

Legio II Parthica had six primi ordines, and therefore six centuries in its first cohort.

Does any source actually state that six primi ordines or primus pilus centurions belonged to the first cohort? Or is this a modern interpretation?

[Paullus Scipio]

...just for the sake of completeness, and the convenience of having all the figures in one place, I shall set out the generally agreed nominal/theoretical figures for various cohorts of Auxiliaries. Although these numbers have been debated, and are not agreed by all scholars ( nor do I wish to start a debate here about them), they are worth setting out.....

CAVALRY: Prior to Imperial times, Roman cavalry seem to have been organised only into Turmae. These were combined into Alae (lit:wings, from their battlefield deployment.The term had earlier been used of the Socii /Allied contingents, also deployed on the flanks of the Legions.) certainly from the date of Augustus on, and possibly earlier since Praefecti equitum, who clearly commanded units larger than turmae, are attested by Caesar in charge of tribal cavalry contingents.
Each Ala in early Imperial times likely consisted of 512 men, inclusive of Officers ( Arrian), consisting of 16 turmae (pseudo-Hyginus and Egyptian inscription C.I.L. iii.6581, Vegetius legionary turma) of 30 troopers commanded by a Decurio with a duplicarius(double pay man) as second in command, giving a total of 32 per turma. (c.f. an actual strength report of Ala Commagenorum from the reign of Claudius, of 12 Decuriones and 434 men which at first sight seems over-strength, but 4 Decuriones are 'missing' presumably detached, and if they left the sick etc from their turmae behind, this would account for any discrepancy). In AD130, a hay receipt for a turma of Ala Veterana Gallorum lists 30 troopers, exclusive of officers.
During Flavian times, larger units, Ala Milliara were created. These were seemingly elite and it appears that no province had more than one.
Von Domaszewski hypothesised turmae of 42 to reach the 'thousand' number, but most consider that the 24 turmae (pseudo-Hyginus) were of the usual 32, giving a total of 768, plus Headquarters staff, so around 800 in total (c.f. First legionary'milliary'Cohort at 5x160 =800)

COHORS EQUITATAE; These units consisted of Infantry cohorts, with cavalry attached, who were inferior in status ( Hadrian's speeches to troops in Africa) to the 'true' cavalry of the Alae, something like later dragoons. They seem to have been introduced from Julio-Claudian times onwards.( the earliest seems to known is from an inscription of Tiberius)The quingenaria cohort had 120 cavalry, and the milliara 240. (pseudo-Hyginus and Josephus, an inscription giving 4 Decuriones for the Equites, and the Coptic inscription giving 61 troopers for two turmae).The quingenaria unit had six centuries (480) Infantry and a milliara ten centuries(800) (pseudo-Hyginus) Once again, this can be compared to some actual strength lists ranging from the second to early third century AD, giving firstly 119 cavalry and 427 Infantry ( close to 'paper' strength, and likely to be a war footing, as suggested by Holder), secondly 114 cavalry and 363 Infantry (typical peacetime conditions), and thirdly 100 cavalry (after losses of 11) and 334 Infantry ( probably after combat, again suggested by Holder.) Pseudo-Hyginus and Josephus are a little problematic here in that apparently both thought, probably incorrectly, that 'century'should be 100 ( e.g. Josephus gives 600 Infantry - 6x100) and in pseudo-Hyginus' case, that 'milliary' meant 1,000 -he gives 240 cavalry plus 760 Infantry = 1.000 and 120 cavalry plus 380 Infantry = 500. These figures simply don't make sense.)

INFANTRY: The cohors peditata quingenaria consisted of 6 centuries of 80 men, 480 total plus Headquarters staff to give around 500.Cohors peditata milliara consisted of ten centuries, giving a total of 800 men plus Headquarters and supernumeraries.

[Ross Cowan]

Does any source actually state that six primi ordines or primus pilus centurions belonged to the first cohort? Or is this a modern interpretation?

Aside from Tac. Ann. 1.32, which clearly indicates six primi ordines, and the II Parthica evidence noted above, AE 1993, 1364a, demonstrates that legio I Italica had six primi ordines.

I'm not sure what you mean by "six primus pilus centurions".

R

[Ross Cowan]

Re. the first cohort apparently having more men than the others, CIL III 14507, a large fragment of a roster naming those soldiers discharged from legio VII Claudia in AD 195, used to be cited in support of this. The inscription seemed to demonstrate that cohors I discharged twice as many men as any of the other cohorts.

However, a new fragment published by M. Mirkovic in ZPE 146 (2004), shows that almost as many men were discharged from cohors VII as from cohors I in 195.

R

[SOCL]

There is an interesting snippet from Tacitus which, as far as I am aware, has never aroused scholarly interest. After the second battle at Cremona, the Seventh Legion was found to have lost "six centurions of the First Order" (Hist. 3.22: occisi sex primorum ordinum centuriones); i.e. six of the primi ordines. But there are only supposed to be five!

I was under the impression that there is little certainty about who constitutes the primi ordines and that they may in fact that not account for the centurions of the first cohort. The loss of six certainly means that they are in high demand (i.e. few in number), but I get the impression that there must have been quite a few more than six. A suggestion I've seen in this forum--though I don't remember where and it was quite possibly speculation--was that the primi ordines also accounted for the senior centurions of each cohort, but like I said, this may have been speculation, especially since I don't have documented proof to back the claim. In any event, is there any concrete evidence that the primi ordines constituted only those centurions of the first cohort?

[Ross Cowan]

In any event, is there any concrete evidence that the primi ordines constituted only those centurions of the first cohort?

AE 1993, 1364a, naming the six primi ordines of I Italica, then the centurions of cohorts, II, III, IV, etc.

R

[SOCL]

In any event, is there any concrete evidence that the primi ordines constituted only those centurions of the first cohort?

AE 1993, 1364a, naming the six primi ordines of I Italica, then the centurions of cohorts, II, III, IV, etc.

R

Ah. Well, that answers that question! :lol: Speculation it was, indeed!

And now I realize the question was already answered. Not sure how I missed that... :? oops:

EDIT: Oops, I missed the entire fourth page! :lol: :oops:

[D B Campbell]

I was under the impression that there is little certainty about who constitutes the primi ordines and that they may in fact that not account for the centurions of the first cohort.

It is usually presented as "fact" that the primi ordines were the centurions of the First Cohort, but it is only a theory. (At least, until 1993 it was only a theory! -- see below.)

The theory certainly seems to be supported (proven even?) by Ross Cowan's inscription (AE 1993, 1364a), which lists the primi ordines et centuriones legionis primae Italicae. The first six names must be the centurions of the First Cohort, because the next five names are preceded by the rubric cohors II. And as the first six names do not have a rubric of their own, we assume that they are the primi ordines. Thanks, Ross!

It's worth noting that H.M.D. Parker believed that the primi ordines included the pilus prior of cohorts II to X, in addition to the six centurions of the First Cohort.

At any rate, regarding five primi ordines, it seems that we've all been duped by the vague testimony of Vegetius!

[D B Campbell]

It's an interesting thought that, without the explicit statement of "Hyginus", we'd be happy to reckon a centuria at 100 men.

...most unlikely, since we have Polybius' numbers for centuries, earlier,(60), and since there are large numbers of references in the literature to Legions of around 5,000 or more in Imperial times...( the increase in size dates from the Punic wars onward, when the Polybian 4,200 man Legion - also referred to in Livy - increased to 4,800, then 5,000 at Cannae, by 182 BC 5,500, By 169 BC 6,300 on the Macedonian front); 5,000 consisting of 10 cohorts and 60 centuries, less cavalry etc gives us around 4,800 infantry in 60 centuries, again consistent with a nominal strength of 80 per century ( whoops! more evidence.... )In other words, even without Hyginus, we would deduce a figure of 80 per century, 10 contubernium of 8........

All of this is fairly irrelevant, Paul.

You have massaged some figures to "prove" an 80-man century, when the same evidence could just as easily "prove" a 100-man century.

But the only reason you need to show centuries of 80 men is that "Hyginus" says that's the right size. "Hyginus" (as I said before -- twice?) is our only evidence for an 80-man century.

btw I notice that you've sneaked in a reference to a contubernium of 8 men at the end, there. But our only evidence for eight men comprising a contubernium is -- guess who? -- "Hyginus"!

Of course, our old friend Vegetius says there were 10 men in a squad! Naturally, we reject Vegetius, as we always do, because he's sooooo unreliable. :wink:

....as is well known, Vegetius is a mish-mash of earlier material, and like the Curate's egg, is only "good in parts". Here, there is no great 'mystery' - the Five "double centuries" are equivalent in men to ten "normal" ones.....

So your argument is that, when Vegetius says there are ten centuries in the First Cohort, he really meant five centuries?

......the introduction of the "double strength" First cohort is generally attributed to Vespasian, ( after the Civil War) and certainly does not appear before Flavian times....once again, no great 'mystery' here....

On the contrary, there's a huge mystery.
You say that "the double-strength First Cohort is generally attributed to Vespasian" -- by whom?!

The only evidence for a double-strength First Cohort comes from -- guess who? -- "Hyginus" (as I already pointed out above). How does that square with your Vespasianic date? Earlier, you said "Hyginus" was "most likely second century AD, possibly early third"!!

we know for example that the 120 Equites were individually listed on the books of their centuries ( for admin reasons probably), but were housed separately in fortress bases, and were therefore over and above the basic 80 man century.... Headquarters staff and other non-combatant specialists were likely also held on the rolls of centuries, but were housed separately, hence are 'supernumerary'...... Cassius Dio, writing of the third century, gives a cohort strength of 550, which tends to confirm this.....

Again, you have gone far beyond the evidence, Paul.

David Breeze suggested that the equites legionis, who were promoted from the ranks of the legion, remained in their original centuries for administrative purposes.

You say that they "were housed separately". In fact, we have no idea where they were quartered. Other legionary specialists did not get separate accommodation. Why would an eques?
You say that the equites were "over and above the basic 80 man century". In fact, we have no idea whether their places as infantrymen were even filled.
You say that the equites were "supernumerary". That's a theory, not a fact.

And Cassius Dio doesn't "give a cohort strength of 550". But if he did, that would really screw up your 80-man centuries!