Zodiac and Late Roman Army Organisation

[antiochus]

Greetings,

My knowledge of the late Roman army is very feeble at best. However, as my research involves applying a tribal system in combination with the Roman cosmos system a change in the Roman tribal organisation should occur during the reign of Honorius. The number produced from this change is 7200 men organised into six age divisions of 1200 men.

The 7200 men can be organised horizontally or vertically. In its horizontal arrangement the 7200 men can be organised into 1200 men of the same age division. The 7200 men when organised vertically distributes the men into five units each of 1440 men. A 1440 man unit can be organised into six units of 240 men. Orisius, when describing Pompey’s army at Pharsalus states that in his days a unit of 1500 men was called a “truman.” As Orisius is living in the correct time frame I find it hard to ignore him as 1440 could be rounded to 1500 men. By reducing a 1440 unit by one units of 240 men, the unit will be reduced to 1200 men, 960 men, 720 men, 480 men, and 240 men.

I have calculated a 1200 men unit in its horizontal organisation consists of 10 units of 120 men. Any number of the 10 units can be taken out thereby reducing the unit to 1080 men, 960 men, 840 men, 720 men, 600 men, 480 men, 360 men and 240 men. I also am inclined to believe a 1200 man unit is commanded by a tribunus cohort. My next hunch is the 7200 men are divided into 3600 iuniores and 3600 seniores. This is done by taking the oldest troops from each age division and dividing them into iuniores and seniores. So for example if age division one is aged from 18 to 21 years, those 18 to 19 are iuniores and those aged 20 to 21 years are seniores. I’ve done it this way so as to be able to produce units of exculcatores seniores and exculcatores iuniores.

I have no idea of whether such terms as pilus prior or posterior or hastatus prior or posterior still exist in 400 AD or even what to call the six age divisions. I have organised the 7200 men into 60 centuries and 30 maniples. In this manner, a century numbers 120 men and a maniple 240 men. Isidore gives the size of a maniple at 200 men which my research shows belongs to the 6000 man legion of Vegetius. So I have followed the same organisation and increased the century and maniple accordingly.

Now I’m not asking anyone to agree with my research involving the cosmos. What I am asking is if the 7200 men theory can be further supported by evidence in the primary sources. I would further like to see if it is possible to break the six age divisions into their respective troop types. My theory at the moment is of the 3600 iuniores or 3600 men seniores, 2400 men are heavy infantry and 1200 men are light infantry. I have a gut feeling the three lines are still in operation but as I have already stated, this period is not my expertise so I would really like the help.

Steven

[D B Campbell]

My research involves applying a tribal system in combination with the Roman cosmos system a change in the Roman tribal organisation should occur during the reign of Honorius. The number produced from this change is 7200 men organised into six age divisions of 1200 men.

It is usually assumed that the late legion was smaller than its imperial predecessor, so I don't think you'll find much support for a 7,200-man unit. (Just my opinion.)

[ValentinianVictrix]

Not sure if your getting too many people joining your camp as the current received wisdom has Late Roman legiones being around 1200 men strong. It's not something I entirely agree with, and once I can find a copy of Zosimus in the original Greek (or I may write to Ridley and ask him direct) I will check one particular passage that may throw some light on the matter. I'm also hoping that the translation of those Anastasian Edict stones from Perge by Onur may also throw some light on Late Roman unit sizes.

From Zosimus we know that Late Roman auxilia units were 1000 men strong, and I would think that the Legiones would have been larger, how much larger is open to much debate!

[Renatus]

once I can find a copy of Zosimus in the original Greek

Adrian,

Try this:

http://www.archive.org/details/novahistoriaed00zosiuoft

[Sean Manning]

Just to confirm, you are asking about nominal or 'paper' strength not the number on the rolls or gathered together at any one time? That one seems really hard ... we don't have many descriptions of paper organization in the late empire.

[Nathan Ross]

My knowledge of the late Roman army is very feeble at best.

I would suggest some more detailed background reading might be your best bet. You seem to be conflating aspects of the Republican manipular legion with later Roman terms. But I'm not sure whether you're actually trying to research the organisation of the army, or just searching for bits of evidence to map onto your theory about astronomy.

[antiochus]

Mr Campbell wrote: It is usually assumed that the late legion was smaller than its imperial predecessor, so I don't think you'll find much support for a 7,200-man unit. (Just my opinion.)

I’m advocating units of 1200 men not one unit of 7200 men. However, a 4800 man legion can consist of six units of 800 men, and a 6000 man legion can consist of six units of 1000 men.

Adrian wrote: Not sure if your getting too many people joining your camp as the current received wisdom has Late Roman legiones being around 1200 men strong.

That is what I am advocating: units at 1200 men.

Adrian wrote: It's not something I entirely agree with, and once I can find a copy of Zosimus in the original Greek (or I may write to Ridley and ask him direct) I will check one particular passage that may throw some light on the matter.

Ridley is in Rome at this very moment. Hmm, I’ve been informed someone has been making enquiries about me.

Adrian wrote: I'm also hoping that the translation of those Anastasian Edict stones from Perge by Onur may also throw some light on Late Roman unit sizes.

How did you know my sources were the Anastasian Edict stones from Perge by Onur. I left three dragons to guard the vault. Oh well, I got myself to blame. I was warned the Avatarian dragons are lazy…but they do come cheap.

Adrian wrote: From Zosimus we know that Late Roman auxilia units were 1000 men strong, and I would think that the Legiones would have been larger, how much larger is open to much debate!

That’s what I suspected. There isn’t enough information.

Sean Manning wrote: That one seems really hard ... we don't have many descriptions of paper organization in the late empire.

Thanks, that is what I thought was the case. I feel better having it confirmed.

Nathan Ross wrote: I would suggest some more detailed background reading might be your best bet. You seem to be conflating aspects of the Republican manipular legion with later Roman terms.

Some of the material I have been reading has been very frustrating and not helpful. So far I’ve read about units of 1000 men or 1200 men but no has given references. I do know of the one given by Zosimus of 6000 men divided into five regiments. I don’t have a problem in using the organisation of the previous legion as a springboard to try and determine the organisation of the next army organisation. Having the maths go pear shaped can indicate an organisational reform.

Nathan Ross wrote: But I'm not sure whether you're actually trying to research the organisation of the army, or just searching for bits of evidence to map onto your theory about astronomy.

I’m after information on the organisation of the Roman army and at the same time trying to experiment how six units of 1200 men could be organised. I don’t understand if a legio was 1200 men, how you could have a legion of 1200 exculcatores and be expected to fight close combat. However, a vertical organisation of 1200 men consisting of one third exculcatores would make sense, but the NT gives the names of units of exculcatores. So maybe the parts join up and become a whole. By following Lydus I am starting to think that units of 1200 men of the same troop type are possibly organised into cohorts of 300 men. However, units of 1200 men of the same troop type could also be formed into larger units numbering 3600 men made up of three troop types. Of the 7200 men, 3600 are iuniores and 3600 are seniores. These 3600 men are then vertically organised into three units of 1200 men made up of different troop types, possibly one type is exculatores, the second lanciarii and to the third, I have no idea, but possibly lanciarii again. In this manner the army has a vertical organisation and horizontal organisation each numbering 1200 men. I’m basing my research on units of 1000 men are pre 400 AD and units of 1200 men are post 400 AD.

Steven

[Caballo]

I'd recommend Nicasie's book, Twilight of the Empire. An excellent analysis of the Late Roman Army.

I have to confess, I don't follow your theory though.

[Renatus]

I have to confess, I don't follow your theorybthough.

You are not alone. I found the following on-line (Steven's contribution in the latter half explains the origins of his theory, I think) but it's still beyond me, I'm afraid.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/neoplatonism/message/4516

[Nathan Ross]

I have to confess, I don't follow your theorybthough.

You are not alone. I found the following on-line (Steven's contribution in the latter half explains the origins of his theory, I think) but it's still beyond me, I'm afraid.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/neoplatonism/message/4516

The theory was also discussed at great length in this very long thread. The last couple of pages are worth looking at.

I'm not at all sure where the figure of 7200 comes from - sizes of Roman military units are often vague at best, at during the late empire especially: Vegetius mentions a legion of 6000 men, Ammianus writes of units of 300 men, archaeologists infer garrisons of 100 on Hadrian's Wall, historians estimate 500-man cohorts of auxilia and legions of 1000-2000... It might seem that the name of the unit is more important than the number of men it contains (which would be the number available at any one time, probably!).

Anyway, as mentioned on the thread above, if there was some grand mathematical plan for troop numbers within army organisation, we don't have any record of it and it certainly isn't supported by the evidence we do possess.

[D B Campbell]

It is usually assumed that the late legion was smaller than its imperial predecessor, so I don't think you'll find much support for a 7,200-man unit. (Just my opinion.)

I’m advocating units of 1200 men not one unit of 7200 men. However, a 4800 man legion can consist of six units of 800 men, and a 6000 man legion can consist of six units of 1000 men.

Why are your units of 1,200 men gathered into sixes, then? What is the point of the 7,200-man unit? And why have you decided that the units should comprise 1,200 men, in any case? :?

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Steven,

Mr Campbell wrote: It is usually assumed that the late legion was smaller than its imperial predecessor, so I don't think you'll find much support for a 7,200-man unit. (Just my opinion.)

In general I would agree with you, but it very much depends on the time and the place. As far as we can tell, the Roman army reform that began somewhere in the late 3rd c., continued for a number of decades. Since no-one thinks that the Emperor decreed that at some date, all units were to be split up, I think it perfectly acceptable that at some point between 280 and, say, 330 AD, we can find legions with a strength of 6-7000. Splits did occur in half-legions of 3000 each (depending on older limitanae or newly created comitatenses units), or into cohorts of about 500 each.

Nicasie (already mentioned earlier by Adrian) estimates the following Late Roman unit strengths:
scholae - 500
legiones (comitatenses) - 1000
legiones (limitanei) - up to 3000
auxilia palatinae - 800
infantry units (limitanei) - 300
cavalry units (limitanei) - 350

I’m advocating units of 1200 men

Your ideas are based on with sources?

How did you know my sources were the Anastasian Edict stones from Perge by Onur.

If this source is the base for that assumption, please let us know, because a) Onur did not yet publish that part of the inscription (as far as I know) and b) it’s fairly late when compared to other sources, which do not agree.
However, if it’s indeed the case, it could be an interesting development.

Adrian wrote: From Zosimus we know that Late Roman auxilia units were 1000 men strong, and I would think that the Legiones would have been larger, how much larger is open to much debate!
That’s what I suspected. There isn’t enough information.

There is more besides Zosimus, and it’s coming from all kinds of sources. It was Mommsen who first noticed that old style legions were probably broken up into 6 detachments of a 1000, each of these commanded by one of the 6 tribunes of the old unit. Only the legions of the limitanei were still commanded by praefecti. Only Nischer proposed that 'new' legions existed of two units of 500, drawn from every border legion, but his theory lacks evidence. However, the Beatty papyrus mentions detachments of 500 men. One vexillatio consisted of 1000 men from legio III Gallica and legio I Illyrica. Another, from legio II Traiana, consisted of two 500-men units. Two vexillationes of legio III Diocletiana numbered 1100. Best not think of the Roman army in modernisms – it was never as clear-cut as we are used to today.

Sean Manning wrote: That one seems really hard ... we don't have many descriptions of paper organization in the late empire.
Thanks, that is what I thought was the case. I feel better having it confirmed.

In fact we have more than we have for the earlier periods.

Some of the material I have been reading has been very frustrating and not helpful. So far I’ve read about units of 1000 men or 1200 men but no has given references.

. Again, try to find Nicasie, who wrote a phd about this subject, and is crammed with references. That how I use his book anyway:
Nicasie, Martijn (1997): Twilight of Empire, the Roman Army from the Reign of Diocletian until the Battle of Adrianople, (Thesis Publishers Amsterdam).

If you want to see numbers and sources, I’ve listed a number of them in my article: http://www.fectio.org.uk/articles/numbers.htm

Nathan Ross wrote: But I'm not sure whether you're actually trying to research the organisation of the army, or just searching for bits of evidence to map onto your theory about astronomy.
[..]
I’m after information on the organisation of the Roman army and at the same time trying to experiment how six units of 1200 men could be organised.

I’ve come across a lot of numbers, but never 1200 or 600. 300, 500, 800, 1000 and 1500 for infantry (Ammianus, mostly).

The old style alae numbered 500 and seem to have remained that way. The ala III Assyriorum was organized in old-style 11 turmae, giving it a possible strength of 350 (ChLA XVIII 660). Ammianus mentions that the cataphracti defeated at Strasbourg were 600 strong, which is echoed by Johannes Lydus who says that alae were that number, and turmae 300 but also 500 (De Mag. I.46). Ammianus also mentions two turmae at Amida numbering 700 together (XVIII.8.2). Procopius has various sizes, between 200 and 800 strong (800: Bella VI.5.1, VI.7.25-6). Some units are larger, between 1000 and 1500, but it is unclear if these are units grouped together, or maybe allied forces (1500: Bella V.27.22-3 and VII.34.42). Maurikios mentions cavalry units should be between 300 and 400, but in any case not less than 200 and not above 400; if understrength, they should be combined.

the NT gives the names of units of exculcatores.

I adhere to the opinion that a lot of unit names in the Notitia are NOT to be taken literally. In many cases we just know that this is the case (some tribal names simply refer to non-existing tribes), and in some cases we have a very strong indication. The Exculcatores are, together with for instance the superventores, exploratores, and praeventores, were probably originally created from a much smaller group of specialists or a vexillation, and retained the name but not the specialism.

Of the 7200 men, 3600 are iuniores and 3600 are seniores. These 3600 men are then vertically organised into three units of 1200 men made up of different troop types, possibly one type is exculatores, the second lanciarii and to the third, I have no idea, but possibly lanciarii again. In this manner the army has a vertical organisation and horizontal organisation each numbering 1200 men. I’m basing my research on units of 1000 men are pre 400 AD and units of 1200 men are post 400 AD.

I have never, EVER, come across a structure such as this hypothesis, in any Late Roman unit. IF this would have been the case, we would at some point have found a description of a soldier being either this or that, serving in the same unit. We haven’t.

[D B Campbell]

It was Mommsen who first noticed that old style legions were probably broken up into 6 detachments of a 1000, each of these commanded by one of the 6 tribunes of the old unit.

I don't believe that Mommsen ever said that, so I would be overjoyed if you could find the reference demonstrating that he actually did. mile:

try to find Nicasie, who wrote a phd about this subject, and is crammed with references. That how I use his book anyway:
Nicasie, Martijn (1997): Twilight of Empire, the Roman Army from the Reign of Diocletian until the Battle of Adrianople, (Thesis Publishers Amsterdam).

I find Nicasie's book to be frustratingly unreliable. Not at all the silver bullet that many presume it to be.

I tried to cut through some of the factoids in a recent issue of Ancient Warfare magazine, but space was at a premium, so I don't know if the attempt was in any way successful.

[Robert Vermaat]

I would be overjoyed if you could find the reference demonstrating that he actually did.

I'll look it up when I get home. :wink:

I find Nicasie's book to be frustratingly unreliable. Not at all the silver bullet that many presume it to be.

I never said that Nicasie is the Bible, but he's full of references, which is why I recommended him in that quote. Or did you find those references unreliable?

[Sean Manning]

Robert, could I have some examples of sources from 400 to 600 CE which talk about an ideal organization, not the strength of particular units at particular times? That was what I was talking about when I said that I thought there were less sources on organization from this period than the middle republic or high empire. Your article mentions a papyrus and several incidental mentions in histories, but those all seem to fall into the second category.

Two main conclusions can be drawn of Late Roman units (Nicasie):
a) in practice, the actual number of troops fielded will have been lower than the paper strengths.
b) it seems possible that Late Roman units did not have fixed establishment strengths at all, but varied between a certain minimum and maximum according to need.

Nicasie's point 2 would fit with what Maurice describes (Strategikon 1.4, 12.b.8 ... edited so that 12.b.8 doesn't render as 8) ).