04-04-2008, 07:13 PM
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.
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.
RESTITVTOR LIBERTATIS ET ROMANAE RELIGIONIS
DEDITICIVS MINERVAE ET MVSARVM
[Micha F.]
DEDITICIVS MINERVAE ET MVSARVM
[Micha F.]
