the century - fighting unit

[Ygraine]

This is a fascinating discussion concerning what I mistakenly thought was a simple question. I am sharing these insights with my students, as they demonstrate considerable research, as well as the dedication to uncover the truth of the past - a very complex endeavor.

[Ygraine]

I am interested to know what book you are working on, and what the general storyline is. Would you share that with us?

[Hibernicus]

I believe that the number of men in a Centuria was standardized to insure that each unit was nearly identical in size. Prior to the standardization of the unit size one area might send more men than another even though each unit were classified as a Centuria.

It is also important to remember that no military unit was at full strength all the time or ever for that matter.

If one man from each contubernium was ill or wounded, dead, retired, assigned elsewhere that means a Centuria had 70 men... if only 20% in a Legio were in such circumstances that meant a Legio might only have 3840 or so soldiers. How often did a corrupt Centurio pad his roster in order to collect pay for men who were not there?

We might say that in 1st C AD a Centuria was supposed to have 80 soldeirs, but did it?

[antiochus]

I am interested to know what book you are working on, and what the general storyline is. Would you share that with us?

Hello Victoria. The book details from 500 BC to 200 AD all organisations (military, political and tribal) of the Romans, including some in-depth studies of famous and not so famous battles, plus how the armies were levied for each campaign. There is an extensive chapter on the Servian organisation. It is important to understand the Romans under the reign of Servius Tullius created a neatly structured paper organisation for the Ager Romanus. Every organisation whether it be military or political was mathematically divisible by each organisation, then all these organisations again are divisible by how the Romans subdivided the cosmos, except for the Roman military camp which was based on the Etruscan subdivision of the cosmos.

Now in regard to your question of the century, I have just finished the chapter on the levy system for the Second Punic War and the value of the century during this period is now 300 men for the infantry. For voting, the 300 men are organised into three centuries of 100 men. Each of these centuries of 100 men will vote yes or no. If the majority vote yes, then the vote for the 100 men is yes. When this procedure is completed for each of the remaining two centuries of 100 men, if the tally is 2 centuries yes, 1 century no, then the vote of the 300 men converts to one vote of yes for that century of 300 men. A lot of confusion can arise in the way the Romans use their terminology. When the value of the century reaches a certain figure, the Roman will then enlarge in increments of 25% the tribal structure and decrease the value of the century in relation to the increase in the tribal structure.

The whole Roman world is governed by formulas. Even the increase in tribes is done in increments of two, so as to maintain the formula. This is so all numbers, both military, political and tribal will divide by the subdivisions of the cosmos. Therefore all the men raised in a campaign must be divided by the tribes levied, so each army has an equal representation of the tribes to legitimise voting while on campaign, and the tribes levied must be divisible by the cosmos subdivisions, which equates to voting districts, and governs the organisation of the army The most significant feature of the book that becomes apparent to the reader is the accuracy of the primary sources. That Victoria is what the book is about—putting modesty aside, a landmark study on the Roman organisational structures. :wink:

In the middle of the night I wake up to the outraged ghost of Livy
standing at my bed, bellowing
“ok scribe, what I say put to pen,
for two long, as a historian I have been condemned,
but through my words you will make recompense.


Does anyone know what if feels like to be the slave of a ghost? It’s not easy.

[Marcus Julius]

Now in regard to your question of the century, I have just finished the chapter on the levy system for the Second Punic War and the value of the century during this period is now 300 men for the infantry. For voting, the 300 men are organised into three centuries of 100 men. Each of these centuries of 100 men will vote yes or no. If the majority vote yes, then the vote for the 100 men is yes. When this procedure is completed for each of the remaining two centuries of 100 men, if the tally is 2 centuries yes, 1 century no, then the vote of the 300 men converts to one vote of yes for that century of 300 men. A lot of confusion can arise in the way the Romans use their terminology.

Sounds a bit like our 'electoral college' here in the states, huh?

[antiochus]

Sounds a bit like our 'electoral college' here in the states, huh?

Those are the same words an American historian said when he read my material.

[Decimus Aurelius Varus]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but it was to my understanding that during the early Republic the army had no real definite dimensions, and they recruited anyone they could. After the Marius reforms, the century was comprised of only 80 men because they had to cut back funds. However, reading in The Roman Army by Pat Southern, this idea is contradicted and he explains that the century was just called a century even though it had 80 men.

[Paullus Scipio]

...and just to complicate Antiochus/Steven's erudite explanations, in the legendary past when 'centuries' first arose, Rome under the Etruscans had a Greek-Style Hoplite based army, and it is likely that, as in Greek Armies, a force would be called up by 'Age Classes' depending on need, so that a varying number of the men in the 'century' might be called up.....

Echoes of this 'age class' basis are still extant in the Punic War period, when, in Polybius' description, the Velites (skirmishers) Hastati (front line) Principes(main line) and Triarii (reserves) are all allocated by 'Age Class'...... youngest to oldest...

[antiochus]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but it was to my understanding that during the early Republic the army had no real definite dimensions, and they recruited anyone they could. After the Marius reforms, the century was comprised of only 80 men because they had to cut back funds. However, reading in The Roman Army by Pat Southern, this idea is contradicted and he explains that the century was just called a century even though it had 80 men.

There are a lot of assumptions written about Marius and his reforms. And you are right, historians disagree about Marius’ reform, an indication no one positively knows. Most of these assumptions are based on the “obvious,â€

[jespah2000]

I would have to agree with Quintius Clavus and others who think that the term 'century' probably had more to do with politics (at least originally) than with the number of men in a Roman unit.

For instance, Dionysus of Halicarnassus states, when referring to the Roman army after the reforms of Servius Tullius:

“For instance, whenever [Servius Tullius] had occasion to raise ten thousand men, or, if it should so happen, twenty thousand, he would divide that number among the hundred and ninety-three centuries and then order each century to furnish the number of men that fell to its shareâ€

[Latinitas]

Vegetius has spoken,

Haec enim suscipit aquilam, quod praecipuum signum in Romano est semper exercitu et totius legionis insigne; haec imagines imperatorum, hoc est diuina et praesentia signa, ueneratur; habet pedites mille centum quinque, equites loricatos CXXXII, et appellatur cohors miliaria; haec caput est legionis, ab hac, cum pugnandum est, prima acies incipit ordinari.

So, Cohors miliaria, the first cohort in the legion, has 1105 soldiers.

Secunda cohors habet pedites DLV, equites LXVI, et appellatur cohors quingenaria.

The other cohortes have 555 soldiers.

His decem cohortibus legio plena fundatur, quae habet pedites sex milia centum, equites DCCXXX.

The legion has 6100 soldiers.

So cohors miliaria has 1105 / 6 = 184 soldiers in one centurium, and the other centuria have 555/6 = 92 soldiers I think. In principe, by casualties it can be various of course.

[antiochus]

I would have to agree with Quintius Clavus and others who think that the term 'century' probably had more to do with politics (at least originally) than with the number of men in a Roman unit.

It is all about the politics, first and foremost! Look at Livy’s (VII 16. 7-8) remark for 357 BC:

“Nothing worth recording was done by the other consul, except his unprecedented action in getting a law passed in camp by the tribes levying 5 per cent on the value of every slave who was manumitted. As the money raised under this law would be a handsome addition to the exhausted treasury, the senate confirmed it. The tribunes of the plebs, however, looking not so much to the law as to the precedent set, made it a capital offence for any one to convene the Assembly outside their usual place of meeting.â€

[L C Cinna]

Vegetius has spoken,

Haec enim suscipit aquilam, quod praecipuum signum in Romano est semper exercitu et totius legionis insigne; haec imagines imperatorum, hoc est diuina et praesentia signa, ueneratur; habet pedites mille centum quinque, equites loricatos CXXXII, et appellatur cohors miliaria; haec caput est legionis, ab hac, cum pugnandum est, prima acies incipit ordinari.

So, Cohors miliaria, the first cohort in the legion, has 1105 soldiers.

This is a mistake by Vegetius as far as I see. he is describing a cohors miliaria equitata here which is an auxiliary formation.

Secunda cohors habet pedites DLV, equites LXVI, et appellatur cohors quingenaria.

The other cohortes have 555 soldiers.

this again is a cohors quingenaria equitata and not a legionary cohort.

His decem cohortibus legio plena fundatur, quae habet pedites sex milia centum, equites DCCXXX.

The legion has 6100 soldiers.

So cohors miliaria has 1105 / 6 = 184 soldiers in one centurium, and the other centuria have 555/6 = 92 soldiers I think. In principe, by casualties it can be various of course.

and here he mixes it all imho

[Tarbicus]

Everyone keeps banging on at poor old Vegetius as being mistaken. Fact is his figures about how far a legion can march in a day turn out to be bang on right.

It seems to me that those who question his writings need to come up with some cold, hard facts of their own to the nnnn-th detail.

[D B Campbell]

I believe, if memory serves, (and someone with far better resources than I is going to have to dig deeper into this) .... I believe that centuria come in part from the word centuriationes which are land divisions... related to the word centuriatum

Centuriation doesn't really have anything to do with the army, Sean.
It's actually a surveying term: according to Varro (and Pliny, I think), arable land was divided up into plots of 200 iugera, each of which was farmed by 100 families (i.e., 2 iugera each). (Iugerum refers to a "yoke" of oxen: i.e. the amount of land that a pair of oxen could plough in a day.) Hence, "centuriation" derives from the idea of 100 families (centuria = "hundred").

At some point that group of soldiers was regulated to be a certain size (in our case 80)

You may be surprised to learn that our only evidence for a centuria being 80 men is a statement in an anonymous, undated treatise! (The so-called De munitionibus castrorum of "Hyginus".)