the century - fighting unit

[L C Cinna]

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.

Go read the quote again before attacking me...

he clearly uses names usually used for auxiliary units and their setup reflects this as well.

he says the first cohort is called miliaria and consists of 1105 infantry and 132 armoured cavalry and the other cohorts consist of 555 soldiers plus 66 cavalry EACH. He's talking about cohortes equitatae.

[Tarbicus]

he clearly uses names usually used for auxiliary units

Who says they're reserved for auxiliary units?

And don't be so over-sensitive. No one was attacking you.

[antiochus]

Who says they're reserved for auxiliary units?

Not me. But I have found a different mathematical arrangement for the auxillary units that goes back to the introduction of the velites in 211 BC. Seems auxillary units are following this arrangement which differs from the Roman. They both maybe called a century, but both have different mathematical values.

Tried out Vegetius numbers last night. Took the military total of the legion and experimented to see how this would break down into the political century which it should be based on. Got different numbers to the previous posting, but the variation from the rest of my numbers for the political century is very close and suggests a reform, which does not surprise me. Vegetius' data included officers so these are outside the century arrangement. And when it includes officers, I get excited because it shows official records are being consulted. Will need more time to work on this but it is my intention to include a chapter on the Vegetius legion in the book

[Paullus Scipio]

Duncan wrote:-

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".)

...actually, the psuedo-Hyginus text is not the only evidence for the size of centuries in early Imperial times - there is archaeological evidence too. For example, the ground plan of Inchtuthil fortress (c.84-86 AD) is consistent with centuries of 80 men and cohorts of six centuries (480 men) as are many other fort sites, except for the First cohort ( referred to by Pseudo-Hyginus and Vegetius as a "double" cohort,) which contained only five centuries - but of double size i.e. of 160 men, giving a total for the First cohort of 800 men. This is supported by epigraphic evidence that the First cohort had only five centurions - the most senior - being Primus Pilus, Princeps, Hastatus, Princeps posterior and Hastatus posterior ( the titles harking back to the 'ancient' republican legion), and a list of optiones on an inscription from Lambaesis from the time of Severus also supports this five century structure. That the 'ordinary' cohort had six centurions - pilus prior, pilus posterior, princeps prior, princeps posterior, hastatus prior and hastatus posterior is also well attested.
The nominal number of 80 could also be very much less in practice. For example, a papyrus from Egypt of the late 1st Century AD, probably AD87,(or rather part of it) shows that the original number was estimated at something like 60 ( missing bit), and the remainder after detachments, men despatched on escort duty, on leave, in hospital etc reads REMAINDER 40, and then lists 9 as 'free from duty' ( keeper of weapons, clerks , orderlies, bookeepers etc) leaving just 31 available for 'general duties', increasing to 36 later in the month - the men are all individually named.

[D B Campbell]

...actually, the psuedo-Hyginus text is not the only evidence for the size of centuries in early Imperial times

So you've decided this undated text is "early Imperial", have you?
(And, yes -- it is the only evidence.)

- there is archaeological evidence too.

With the best will in the world, no archaeological evidence is ever going to tell us how many men were in a century. Unless you find the remains of 80 coat-hooks in the barracks!

[Paullus Scipio]

So you've decided this undated text is "early Imperial", have you?

...not at all! I haven't 'decided' anything ! :evil: This is the consensus of the majority of scholars who have studied this text - on internal evidence ( reference to dacian auxiliaries and Praetorians etc) it is most likely second century AD, possibly early third. The exception is Frere, who would date it to Flavian ( specifically Domitian's reign) times. Most people would consider that range of dates 'early Imperial'......

With the best will in the world, no archaeological evidence is ever going to tell us how many men were in a century.

....please read my post again - I did not contend that the archaeology can give us an exact number, merely that it is "consistent with" a nominal 80 per century, and that in practice the number in a century could vary widely, as evidenced by epigraphical evidence. This is what is called 'supporting evidence', and means that pseudo-Hyginus is not the only evidence we have for this number.

[Dan Diffendale]

I did not contend that the archaeology can give us an exact number, merely that it is "consistent with" a nominal 80 per century,

Presumably, had one a text saying the a century numbered 100 men, one could squeeze an extra man into the rooms, consistent with the archaeological evidence?

Second or third century is IMHO a bit late to call "Early Imperial."

[Praefectusclassis]

Guys, don´t be playing semantics in this interesting debate. Early Imperial is commonly used as a synonym for Principate / 'Haut Empire' vs Late Imperial / Dominate / 'Bas Empire'.

[D B Campbell]

Presumably, had one a text saying the a century numbered 100 men, one could squeeze an extra man into the rooms, consistent with the archaeological evidence?
Second or third century is IMHO a bit late to call "Early Imperial."

I agree entirely with both points, Dan.
If "Hyginus" had written 120, I'm sure we'd have shoe-horned them into Inchtuthil!

the psuedo-Hyginus text is not the only evidence for the size of centuries in early Imperial times - there is archaeological evidence too.

Yes -- I thought that's what you'd said.
And I explained that "no archaeological evidence is ever going to tell us how many men were in a century".

[L C Cinna]

he clearly uses names usually used for auxiliary units

Who says they're reserved for auxiliary units?

And don't be so over-sensitive. No one was attacking you.

yes sorry. hope you accept my apology I was a bit...well not the best day yesterday.

You are right about the names but the numbers still seem a bit strange to me. I've checked Junkelmann now and the numbers for cavalry given by Vegetius in the quote above seem too low for a cohors equitata.

Vegetius:

• 1105 infantry and 132 armoured cavalry for a cohors miliaria
  
  
  555 soldiers plus 66 cavalry for a cohors quingenaria
  

Junkelmann:

• circa 800 infantry plus 256 to 320 cavalry for a cohors equitata miliaria
  
  circa 480 infantry and 128 to 160 cavalry for a cohors quingenaria equitata

on the other hand if we take Vegetius numbers we'd come up with a legion's strenght of

6100 infantry and 726/730 cavalry

this seems way too much cavalry for a legion imho. The usual number given is around 120 legionary cavalry.

So I'm just wondering what he's talking about? A strenghtened legion? legio equitata? In this case I'm wondering when such a setup was common or came into use? late 2nd early 3rd century?

[D B Campbell]

The nominal number of 80 could also be very much less in practice. For example, a papyrus from Egypt of the late 1st Century AD, probably AD87,(or rather part of it) shows that the original number was estimated at something like 60 ( missing bit), and the remainder after detachments, men despatched on escort duty, on leave, in hospital etc reads REMAINDER 40, and then lists 9 as 'free from duty' ( keeper of weapons, clerks , orderlies, bookeepers etc) leaving just 31 available for 'general duties', increasing to 36 later in the month - the men are all individually named.

Reference?

Of course, 80 is a red herring. You can cite papyri showing that centuriae were smaller than that. I can cite others showing that centuriae were larger than that (e.g. Tab. Vind. 2.154 from AD 80/90s; P. Dura 82 from AD 220s).

It's an interesting thought that, without the explicit statement of "Hyginus", we'd be happy to reckon a centuria at 100 men. And we'd make the same special pleading for why some are smaller than that and some are larger!

[D B Campbell]

For example, the ground plan of Inchtuthil fortress (c.84-86 AD) is consistent with centuries of 80 men and cohorts of six centuries (480 men) as are many other fort sites,

Hmmm ... I wish.

... except for the First cohort ( referred to by Pseudo-Hyginus and Vegetius as a "double" cohort,) which contained only five centuries - but of double size i.e. of 160 men, giving a total for the First cohort of 800 men.

Double cohort? "Hyginus" (ch.3) certainly says that "the first cohort gets double the space because it has double the number" [i.e. of men], but Vegetius (and this is the problem that Cinna pointed out) just says that "the first cohort exceeds the others in the number of soldiers ... it has 1,150 infantrymen and 132 armoured cavalrymen and is called cohors miliaria" (Mil. 2.6). So, again, we're back with "Hyginus".

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"! 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.

Double-sized centuries? No evidence known to me. Have you got anything concrete?

This is supported by epigraphic evidence that the First cohort had only five centurions - the most senior - being Primus Pilus, Princeps, Hastatus, Princeps posterior and Hastatus posterior ( the titles harking back to the 'ancient' republican legion), and a list of optiones on an inscription from Lambaesis from the time of Severus also supports this five century structure.

Reference?

Five centurions? The fortress at Nijmegen (and our esteemed Dutch colleagues may be able to shed further light) had five courtyard-style houses in the position expected of the First Cohort. (Unfortunately, the five houses were associated with 6 barrack blocks, but that's archaeology for you!) Similarly, the remains of five courtyard houses were identified at Inchtuthil, although they were not completely excavated and the plans were heavily "reconstructed". No other fortresses show this kind of evidence.

The epigraphic evidence is similarly deficient. Basically it boils down to the fact that the rank of pilus posterior in the First Cohort has not been found on any inscriptions. Is it reasonable to suppose that it therefore did not exist? Maybe. Maybe not (see below).

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!

Just in case anybody thought that we know all there is to know about the legionary century. But if there were no mysteries, there'd be no fun!

[L C Cinna]

Good points there Mr. Campbell.

There are some more questions, or maybe just additional to yours.

Who is actually counted by the different writers into the ranks of the cohort (or century)?

There are suggestions (like Junkelmann makes, sorry for always using him in this thread but I have his books here right now while the majority of the others is at work and I don't want to cite out of memory but suggestions are similar) additional staff, non combatants, eqites legionis... 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 strenght of the companies was higher than the actual fighting strenght.

On the first cohort:

I remember reading that they were not always double strenght even during the 1st century CE. I'd even go so far as to doubt the double strenght for the late 2nd and whole 3rd century CE when legions hardly ever appear in full strenght but only as vexilations.

[Ross Cowan]

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"! 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.

Legio II Parthica had six primi ordines, and therefore six centuries in its first cohort. According to J. C. Balty & W. Van Rengen, Apamea in Syria: The Winter Quarters of Legio II Parthica (Brussels 1993), p. 18: "At least three inscriptions specifically mention a pilus posterior linked with the first cohort".

I think only one of the three relevant inscriptions has been published:

AE 1993, 1588, Apamea (probably AD 242-244)

D(is) M(anibus) / Aurel(ius) Ingenuis t/esserarius leg(ionis) II Pa/r(thicae) 7(centuria) I pil(i) post(erioris) qui vixit an/nos XXXV me(n)sibus V/II diebus X Geminius R/estutus collega et h/eres bene meren/ti fecit


R

[D B Campbell]

Legio II Parthica had six primi ordines, and therefore six centuries in its first cohort. According to J. C. Balty & W. Van Rengen, Apamea in Syria: The Winter Quarters of Legio II Parthica (Brussels 1993), p. 18: "At least three inscriptions specifically mention a pilus posterior linked with the first cohort".

Wonderful news! Von Domaszewski would've been delighted.