Is there any evidence of pre-Caesar named legions?

[louisxyz]

my understanding is that the Marian reforms created a professional standing army and reformed the legions. However all the evidence of named and numbered legions appear to be all legions levied by Caesar and later figures. Is there any evidence of named and numbered legions before Caesar? Were the legions simply not named, or have their names not survived?
I apologise if i have totally misunderstood the legion system!
gratias ago

[popularis]

Numbered legions there certainly were, numbered according to the order in which they were raised in a given year. Quite how this worked when legions were raised and sent to a place where there was another legion with the same number I don't know (this must have happened in Spain, surely). We do hear of some legions carrying nicknames, the 'Fimbriani' for example (see this thread for a good discussion). This may have been a pejorative name, but there's a good many modern regiments whose nicknames are based on insults, so it might have been what they called themselves.

In general, however, unit naming seems to have been a result of three things: keeping a unit together for a long time (most legions until the late Republic were raised for a specific campaign and disbanded after it); reinforcing a unit to cover losses, thus creating a permanent unit as opposed to one that stays together for 10 years until its too small to continue; and, perhaps, a greater sense of military identity (the post-Marian solider was more likely to think of himself as a career soldier). Our knowledge of these names also has a lot to to do with the 'epigraphic habit': we don't have many inscriptions recording common soldiers before the civil wars and nicknames for legions are relatively rarely found in ancient literary sources.

As a result, legions raised before Caesar (in fact, before the civil wars - most 'Caesarian' imperial legions were reformed in the early 40s) were disbanded and any nicknames would have been lost. It's worth noting that during the civil wars some legions appear to change their names, while others - even long established ones - don't acquire names for some time. Naming seems to have been, very often, an informal process!

[Nathan Ross]

Aside from the Fimbriani mentioned by Tom, I don't think we know of any legion names prior to 44BC. Cicero, writing to Atticus in that year, mentions the legione alaudarum commanded by M Antonius. Later, in the Philippics (I.8 ), he refers to a legio Martia in Octavian's army. The first of these is, of course, the famous Alaudae - later given the number V - raised by Caesar from the noble volunteers of Transalpine Gaul (Suetonius, Caesar 24). The number of the 'legion of Mars' is unknown.

Perhaps it's significant that legion names are first found in a time of civil war - with legions on the opposing sides often holding the same number, names might have been necessary to distinguish the different armies. Certainly names occur with increasing frequency after 44 on inscriptions. The civil wars also gave birth to the Augustan 'standing army', of course, so perhaps various unofficial legion nicknames that had been around for a while were given a more official sanction.

If we assume that Caesar's 10th legion were named Equestris due to their providing a mounted escort during the meeting with Ariovistus in 58, then this might be the earliest recorded legion name. But Caesar himself never mentions it, and neither does anyone else! (see Keppie, The Making of the Roman Army, p137). The name isn't recorded until after Philippi, I believe. Another name attested for the 10th is Veneria, and this might actually be older - recall the Martia mentioned by Cicero, a similar 'divine' legion name. I wondered some time ago whether the 'original' name for the 10th might have been X Veneria Equestris, after the goddess Venus Equestris, a Roman form of Astarte... but I digress!

- Nathan

[popularis]

If we assume that Caesar's 10th legion were named Equestris due to their providing a mounted escort during the meeting with Ariovistus in 58, then this might be the earliest recorded legion name. But Caesar himself never mentions it, and neither does anyone else! (see Keppie, The Making of the Roman Army, p137).

There's a Pompeian inscription which probably dates from the 40s referring to X Equestris (D'Ambrosio and De Caro (1983) Pompeii 17OS (Pompeii, Regio 1, Italia)).

[?L. Tilius] C. f. Cor(nelia) / [tr(ibunus) mil(itum) l]eg(ionis) X equest(ris) / duouir i(ure) d(icundo) // C. Tilio C. f. Cor(nelia) / Rufo patri duomuir(o) / i(ure) d(icundo) bis aedili i(ure) d(icundo) Arpini / auguri Verulis // C. Tilio L. f. Cor(nelia) auo // Fadiae C. f. / matri // C. Tilio C. f. C[or(nelia)] / Rufo fratri tr(ibuno) mil(itum) / leg(ionis) X auguri Verulis

Note that this was published after Keppie's book - or their publications overlapped - so it probably wouldn't be in there.

It's interesting that the brother (C. Tillius) is only listed as serving in Leg X (no cognomen). Given that the brother was probably the elder son (he shares his father's praenomen), it's possible that the elder brother served in the legion before it acquired its cognomen, and someone (possibly his brother, possibly himself) chose not to use the nickname in his cursus because of this. It is obviously highly unlikely that both brothers served in separate Xth legions!

blue skies

Tom

[Nathan Ross]

There's a Pompeian inscription which probably dates from the 40s referring to X Equestris (D'Ambrosio and De Caro (1983) Pompeii 17OS (Pompeii, Regio 1, Italia))...Note that this was published after Keppie's book - or their publications overlapped - so it probably wouldn't be in there.

The Pompeian inscription to the Tillii was discussed by Castren in Arctos 1974 (see my link above), which essay is cited by Keppie (1984) in the notes to Making of the Roman Army.... so he knew about it alright! Actually I believe it was the first time anyone had made the connection between Legio X, the Equestris cognomen and the Ariovistus episode.

You may well be right about the older and younger brothers though - which would make the use of the name very much post-Caesarian... :neutral:

- Nathan

[popularis]

The Pompeian inscription to the Tillii was discussed by Castren in Arctos 1974 (see my link above), which essay is cited by Keppie (1984) in the notes to Making of the Roman Army.... so he knew about it alright! Actually I believe it was the first time anyone had made the connection between Legio X, the Equestris cognomen and the Ariovistus episode.

The dangers of not checking before I post! Well picked up.

You may well be right about the older and younger brothers though - which would make the use of the name very much post-Caesarian...

On the other hand:

1) There's no certainty that this inscription dates to the 40s BC. As far as I know, the inscription is dated on stylistic grounds. A decade earlier or later is feasible.
2) The date of the inscription doesn't date the military service. IIIRC Roman cursus inscriptions of the period tend to record the title that someone held, not the title as it was at the time the inscription was set up (cf. imperial priesthood titles etc. - Castren has some good stuff on this, I think). Moreover, given that his municipal career is listed after his military career, it is probable - although no more than probable - that his municipal career followed his military career (cf. Saddington (1996) in Athenaeum 84).

So the inscription might have been set up in 42 by, lets say, a man in his forties who served in Caesar's legions in the mid 50s BC, and name a brother who served under Caesar in 59.

[A_Volpe]

In regards to X Equestrus - My theory/thinking (speculating) is that Caesar may have 'named' the Legion
as such to distinguish itself among his other legions that he had raised and has acquired. I think it's possible that he may have had more than one Legion with duplicate numbers, as I tend to side with the school of thought that up until his time, Legions only had numbers, and that reflected this "older"/Republic sequential order. As I want to say I seem to recall him having multiple numbered Legions, even if they did not have 'full strength' troop counts, as it represented a recruitment/levy more than anything.

He may have just as well given it a title as an Honorary distinction for that specific instance of being Mounted.

"Ooooh, you're with THAT Legion....So you must be important"

IIRC, Marcus Antonius had 2 Legions numbered III (I may be muddling my details, but he had the III from Cyrenaica, and I want to say a III from Greece?) ~ But after Augustus had to re-organize the dozens of Legions down to [22], those legions with troop numbers too few or had not claimed loyalty to him, whichever, got absorbed or consolidated into other (larger? established? loyal?) legions, or disbanded.

[Nathan Ross]

There's no certainty that this inscription dates to the 40s BC. As far as I know, the inscription is dated on stylistic grounds. A decade earlier or later is feasible.

That's true, but even a decade either side still leaves us in the late-Caesar early-Augustus era.

given that his municipal career is listed after his military career, it is probable - although no more than probable - that his municipal career followed his military career (cf. Saddington (1996) in Athenaeum 84).

Is that right? I'd thought that these inscriptions tended to list equestrian military service first, and civil positions afterwards, excepting the higher procuratorships and so on - actual chronology notwithstanding. That would be later Imperial practice anyway. Then again, my latin-deciphering skills are none of the best...

So the inscription might have been set up in 42 by, lets say, a man in his forties who served in Caesar's legions in the mid 50s BC, and name a brother who served under Caesar in 59.

Possible - but all we can reasonably say is that the younger brother Lucius (who names his legion 'Equestris') would have to be over 25 (at least) to have served as duumvir. Beyond that, we don't really know when each Tulius served in each position, or how much later the inscription was set up! All things considered, I still wouldn't say it safely backdates the use of the 'Equestris' cognomen to the pre-40s...

- Nathan

[Nathan Ross]

Caesar may have 'named' the Legion as such to distinguish itself among his other legions that he had raised and has acquired. I think it's possible that he may have had more than one Legion with duplicate numbers

During the wars in Gaul all his legions followed a numbered sequence, so there were no duplicates - if they did have 'unofficial' names, he never let on about them in his writings!

He may have just as well given it a title as an Honorary distinction for that specific instance of being Mounted.

I think it's maybe more likely, if we assume that 'Equestris' relates to the Ariovistus episode (and there is no actual proof of this!), that the name was adopted by the veterans of the tenth when they were re-raised in Gaul in 44. We know from letters of the time (e.g. Plancus to Cicero) that the tenth were considered pretty special, but still nobody mentions their having a special name. Also, at that time they were the only tenth legion in the field, so a name would only be necessary later - maybe after Philippi, when Octavian and Antony split the Roman army between them and legion numbers were duplicated east/west.

Possibly at that point in 42, the few surviving Gallic war veterans still with the legion (very few indeed - most were pensioned off by this time, but possibly some remained as centurions and kept up a kind of esprit d'corps!) might have remembered the events of 16 years before, or the unofficial nickname they'd carried ever since, and awarded themselves the name 'Equestris'... Even so, Antony's coin series issued before Actium named one or two legions - XII Antiqua is one - but his tenth legion remains unnamed.

But generally, I think it's safe to assume that all legion names date from this period c.49-30, when legion numbers were so widely duplicated as to need further qualification, and long-standing units gained an individual identity.

- Nathan

[popularis]

Is that right? I'd thought that these inscriptions tended to list equestrian military service first, and civil positions afterwards, excepting the higher procuratorships and so on - actual chronology notwithstanding. That would be later Imperial practice anyway. Then again, my latin-deciphering skills are none of the best...

The order of the posts in a cursus seems to have followed a convention for the Triumviral/Augustan period, but it's an odd one - and a bit beyond a quick post. Have a look at the Saddington article referenced above, which I think is generally right (although I don't agree with some of his specific examples). I've got more on this on request!

Generally though, the cursus is split into civilian, military, religious and honorific parts. Within these parts each post is given in chronological order, and the parts themselves are ordered by which started first (e.g. if someone was a duouir then a military tribune, the municipal career would come before the equestrian military career).

Possible - but all we can reasonably say is that the younger brother Lucius (who names his legion 'Equestris') would have to be over 25 (at least) to have served as duumvir. Beyond that, we don't really know when each Tulius served in each position, or how much later the inscription was set up! All things considered, I still wouldn't say it safely backdates the use of the 'Equestris' cognomen to the pre-40s...

Agreed, there's not enough dating criteria to be certain of anything! I don't like stylistic dating of inscriptions to within any 10 year bracket anyway (unless, possibly, there's a very clear local trend).

blue skies

Tom