Auxiliary Cohorts and their titles

[Mick C Saunders]

I wonder if anyone can help me? I have now read on a number of occasions that different auxiliary units can have the same titles and we have to be careful when we read that a particular unit was in a particular place at a particular time. It may be a different cohort with the same designation.
First of all is it true that there could be different units with the same name?
Secondly if so how did this happen and how did the romans differentiate?
How can WE be sure when we talk about particular cohorts?
Thanks
Mick Saunders

[Jona Lendering]

First of all is it true that there could be different units with the same name?

Yes. There were two first Tungrian alae, for example.

Secondly if so how did this happen and how did the romans differentiate?

Adding the name of the commander: one of the two alae was called "of Fronto".

We would love to know more about it.

[AureliusFalco]

There were two COH I Thracum in Britain: one being called Equitata and the other CR(Civium Romanorum?). Also I have heard of at least three Ala Augusta in Britain,being differentiated by the names of their commanders.

[Mick C Saunders]

Thanks for responses to date. However I remain unclear as to why this happened. Would it not have been simpler to have different numbers? Does this use of the same name not make it difficult for us to track the movements of a particular unit?
Mick Saunders

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Thanks for responses to date. However I remain unclear as to why this happened. Would it not have been simpler to have different numbers? Does this use of the same name not make it difficult for us to track the movements of a particular unit?
Mick Saunders

I'll bet they just forgot about us in the heat of the moment, Mick. You know what it's like, one minute your pushing for green policies, and preserving the environment for the future generations, the next, someone pulls up in a stonkin' V8 supercar and offers to let you drive, and all those good intentions go up in a puff of smoke... :roll: Probably something similar :mrgreen:

[D B Campbell]

However I remain unclear as to why this happened.

One theory is that, when a new recruiting drive was launched in a particular area, the recruiters failed to check on pre-existing units and simply started numbering at I (i.e. prima, "first") again.

[jkaler48]

It could be that at times command authorities were not checking with each other about new unit names because they were at odds (as in civil war).

[Jona Lendering]

I remain unclear as to why this happened. Would it not have been simpler to have different numbers?

If those cohorts-with-the-same-name were not in the same region, there was no problem. Just like legionary names. After 195, there were four first legions (Adiutrix in Pannonia, Italica in Moesia, Minervia in Bonn, Parthica in Mesopotamia).

At the same time, we should perhaps not expect logic. In the first place because we're dealing with the army - and that's not just a joke. Army people love their honor and love their traditions, and these attitudes can be obstacles to practical thinking. In the second place because we're dealing with Antiquity. People thought differently, back then; think only about their attitude towards money.

And of course Duncan is right too.

[AureliusFalco]

I agree with Jona; the mindset of the ancients was very different. For example, look at the legions. It would have been simpler to number them one through thirty, but for various reasons this wasn't done. In some cases, such as the I Italica, it was to commemorate where the new legion was raised. Some, like the X Gemina & X Fretensis, had existed at the same time & simply retained their original numbers. So, it should not be odd that auxilary cohorts should be as confusing. Even if they were serving in the same area, they usually would have had names to deferentiate between the two, like the three Ala Augusta stationed in Britain. I guess to the Romans, it made sense.

[D B Campbell]

Actually, there are remarkably few duplicates, and all (as far as I can see) come from the big recruiting grounds, where it is perhaps understandable that an error could arise (if indeed it was even considered to be an error) in recruiting a duplicate series of units, maybe a generation after the last one had been dispersed across the empire.

It might even be useful to make a checklist, to quantify the extent of the "problem". (Or am I taking this too seriously?)

Spain
Besides the "tribal" units (e.g. Cantabrians, Celtiberians, Lusitanians, Bracarians/Bracaraugustanians) there are several generic "Spanish" units that were perhaps the result of seven separate recruiting drives.

Cheesman (pp. 184-5) noted eight different cohortes named I Hispanorum, which he separated into four pre-Flavian and four Flavian or later.
But his British I Hispanorum equitata and I Aelia Hispanorum miliaria equitata are probably the same unit, and his Moesian I Hispanorum veterana is probably the same as his Dacian I Hispanorum, and his Moesian I Flavia Hispanorum miliaria equitata is probably (as he himself thought likely) the same as the Dacian I Flavia Ulpia Hispanorum c.R. And he missed the German I Hispanorum.
So it looks as if there were seven units (that we know) named cohors I Hispanorum. When two of them turned up in the same province, they were differentiated by the honorific titles taken by one of them (Flavia Ulpia).
Cheesman (p. 185) noted four different cohortes named II Hispanorum, suggesting that there were at least four separate recruiting drives of at least two cohorts.
Cheesman (p. 185) also noted a III, a IV, a V and a VI Hispanorum, suggesting that one of the above recruiting drives had been a big one.

Purely cavalry units were always rarer than cohorts, and Cheesman noted only three I Hispanorum, but two were usually otherwise designated, as I Campagonum (a "tribal"-type name) and I Auriana (an honorific-type name). There are, in any case, probably different dynamics going on, in the naming of the more prestigious cavalry units (imho).

Will that do as an illustration? Or does someone have the stamina for Pannonian units and Thracian units?!

[Praefectusclassis]

There may have been multiple Cohortes I Classica (Germania Inf / Britannia in 120s AD) and II (Syria, Arabia) in the late 130s.

[D B Campbell]

There may have been multiple Cohortes I Classica (Germania Inf / Britannia in 120s AD) and II (Syria, Arabia) in the late 130s.

Interesting, Jasper. What's the Arabian evidence for II Classica?

[Praefectusclassis]

One diploma, iirc. There's a Speidel article with evidence for a II and III Classica, possibly raised from fleet troops during the Jewish revolt of the 130s. The fleets were certainly depleted during that war, likely used to replenish legionary units. There's a remarkable drop in fleet discharge certificates after the revolt, which only pics up after 160, indicating a recruitment drive right after the revolt.

[D B Campbell]

One diploma, iirc.

Hmmm, must be a new one.

I take your point re. cohors I Classica, though. Our British one is called I Aelia Classica, perhaps created by Hadrian c. AD 122.

[Praefectusclassis]

Can't check it at the moment, but I'm reasonably sure it's this one: SPEIDEL, M. P. – WEISS, P., Das erste Militärdiplom für Arabia. ZPE 150 (2004) 253–264