Zodiac and Late Roman Army Organisation

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Duncan,

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:

Apologies for my tardiness, but I looked it up: according to the reference: "Mommsen formulated the hypothesis that the old legions were broken up into six detachments of about 1.000 men each, each detachment under one of the six tribunes of the legion, and most modern authors have followed him in this" (Nicasie p. 68, note 120).
The reference is to Mommsen (1889) 195 ff, especially 207-208, 215.

[Sean Manning]

Sean Manning wrote: Eratosthenes' estimate of the circumference of the earth as 252,000 = 700 x 360 stadia appeared around 200 BCE. If the Romans linked their population to the circumference of the earth, what figure did they use before.

The Romans do not link the population to the circumference of the earth. They link it to the orbit of the fixed stars also termed the zodiac or the abode of the gods. But the system undergoes three transformations. This was the most difficult passage of the research, especially when the cosmos system does not adhere to the foundation date of Rome as its starting point. Thankfully the cosmos system no longer throws up any more surprises. There was a period there when I thought it would never end.

Humh, then I don't understand. You just claimed that one man in a cohort equaled one degree of a spherical, geocentric cosmos, and that the number of men in a cohort times the length of one degree of the earth's circumference equals the number of men in the tribes. That certainly sounds like relating the number of men in the tribes to the circumference of the earth to me!

You said that “Many ancient authorities tell us a zodiac amounts to 30 degrees and Strabo remarks that one degree [of the earth's circumference- ed.] equals 700 stadia. Therefore, one zodiac equals 21,000 stadia. By taking the 480 man cohort as our example, when divided by 30 degrees the result is 16 zodiacs. In this manner one man in a cohort equals one degree, so a 480 man cohort when multiplied by 700 stadia per degree equals 336,000 stadia. This number means nothing to most readers at this point, but it is the number of men in the 35 tribes.” The figure of 700 stadia is Eratosthenes' estimate of the length of 1/360th of the earth's circumference (cited by Strabo, Geography, 2.34); one degree of the circumference of the orbit of the fixed stars would be much longer.

[D B Campbell]

Apologies for my tardiness, but I looked it up: according to the reference: "Mommsen formulated the hypothesis that the old legions were broken up into six detachments of about 1.000 men each, each detachment under one of the six tribunes of the legion, and most modern authors have followed him in this" (Nicasie p. 68, note 120). The reference is to Mommsen (1889) 195 ff, especially 207-208, 215.

Thank you for finally nailing this one down, Robert. (Pp. 207-208 are a red herring; p. 215 is correct.)

It's worth noting Mommsen's precise wording here [ with my comments ]:
"the legion normally numbered 6,000 men [ really? ] and stood under six tribunes [ but surely there were differences between the senatorial tribune and the five equestrian tribunes? ]; it seems reasonable to divide it into sixths [ but this has no relevance for Diocletian's army; even in the fourth century, it is not a universal phenomenon: in the ND, XIII Gemina and II Adiutrix are divided into six, but others are divided into fewer fragments (or none) ] and assign each tribune partial command over 1,000 men [ can this be demonstrated to have happened? ever? ]"

I would simply advocate some degree of caution when building our own theories (e.g. the theory of the 1,000-man legion) on foundations that were, themselves, theoretical. :neutral:

[Robert Vermaat]

It's worth noting Mommsen's precise wording here [ with my comments ]:
"the legion normally numbered 6,000 men [ really? ] and stood under six tribunes [ but surely there were differences between the senatorial tribune and the five equestrian tribunes? ]; it seems reasonable to divide it into sixths [ but this has no relevance for Diocletian's army; even in the fourth century, it is not a universal phenomenon: in the ND, XIII Gemina and II Adiutrix are divided into six, but others are divided into fewer fragments (or none) ] and assign each tribune partial command over 1,000 men [ can this be demonstrated to have happened? ever? ]"

In this case, please do not mistake Nicasie's ideas for those of Mommsen's - this reference was about who said what. Of course Mommsen should be read with care - this is the late 19th centurey after all, and the man did rewrite sources when he thought it better to.

So did a legion number 6000 men? Well, some did, Vegetius is the last one telling us so, and we have to decide whether that was right or not.
What has relevance for Diocletian's army or not I can't possibly say. I an not of the opinion that Diocletian altered the Severan army in it's entirety and that Constantine did it all over again. I think that Diocletian began a development which was carried out by Constantine, and that Constantine did his own thing: it's very hard to say who did what and to which extent. But some legions may well have remained untouched even after Constantine, and were split up later.
Can we prove that a legion was split up and each tribune assumed command over a new part of 1.000 men? No we can't, as we do not have a letter from HQ to command this. But we know more or less who commanded smaller legions and units, and therefore it's perhaps logical to assume that, in the very case of a split-up of such a legion (and we can't tell exactly how that went about), these tribune retained command of such units.

[D B Campbell]

Can we prove that a legion was split up and each tribune assumed command over a new part of 1.000 men? No we can't, as we do not have a letter from HQ to command this.

This was more or less my point, Robert -- that we would normally wait for some scrap of evidence to suggest that a legion could be divided up amongst the tribunes, before proposing it as a general rule. Or again, some evidence that legions were reduced to 1,000 men, before proposing that a tribune might be an appropriate commander for such a size of unit.

I totally agree that Mommsen was trail-blazing. For that reason, we should be willing to question his theories, while being thankful that he formulated them in the first place.

But we know more or less who commanded smaller legions and units, and therefore it's perhaps logical to assume that, in the very case of a split-up of such a legion (and we can't tell exactly how that went about), these tribune retained command of such units.

Aren't the ND legions commanded by praefecti?

[Robert Vermaat]

[..] we would normally wait for some scrap of evidence to suggest that a legion could be divided up amongst the tribunes, before proposing it as a general rule. Or again, some evidence that legions were reduced to 1,000 men, before proposing that a tribune might be an appropriate commander for such a size of unit.

Did Mommsen propose it as a general rule? I haven't read his actual words, I only know that he was the first to propose that this was perhaps how the classsical large legion could have been broken down into smaller units.

Aren't the ND legions commanded by praefecti?

The praefectus was the officer in command of old-style legions (praefectus legionis) and of old-style alae (praefectus alae), although these were only to be found in the West, notably on the Danube and in Britain. Praefecti could also command several units together, as seen with the praefectus legionis quartaedecimae geminae militum liburnariorum cohortis quintae partis superior, Carnunto, who commanded the fourteenth legion as well as a part of the Danube fleet plus the fifth cohort, from his command post at Carnuntum.

The tribunus was the commanding officer of a new-style unit, which could be a regiment of auxilia palatina or a numerus or anything in between. Tribuni of the scholae were commanded by the magister officiorum, but tribuni also commanded cavalry vexillationes, new-style auxilia regiments as well as the new-style legions of the field army, but also the old-style cohorts of the limitanei. By the mid-fifth century a tribunus might also be styled a comes, under the debasement of Roman military titles. By the sixth century a papyrus describes an old-style cohort commanded by a tribunus, eight senior officers including the adiutor (regimental clerk), the primicerius, six ordinarii and six others, probably the centuriones.
A so-called tribunus vacans was an officer temporarily without unit serving as a staff officer. These tribuni vacantes could also serve on special duties – when Ammianus was on a misssion from Ursicinus to relieve the magister peditum Silvanus of his command (read “arrest him”), he and his nine fellow domestici were accompanied by several tribuni vacantes. And in Egypt, a tribunus civitatis might combine military and civilian duties, acting like a governor. Tribuni could also be in charge of barbarian groups, as the example of the Tribunus gentis Marcomannorum shows. We know of one Agilo who was a tribunus stabuli in 357. These men (later comes stabuli) were responsible for gathering levies of horses for the army. A tribunus probably received eight annonae (plus four capitus if cavalry).

[D B Campbell]

Did Mommsen propose it as a general rule? I haven't read his actual words, I only know that he was the first to propose that this was perhaps how the classsical large legion could have been broken down into smaller units.

I quoted his words in translation. (I don't know about you, but I find his style of German very difficult to read -- probably my Anglophone upbringing.) The point is that his idea has found its way into the mainstream, to such an extent that Steven (in this thread) imagines that the 1,200-man legion is as good as an established fact.

Anyhow, if you subscribe to Ancient Warfare magazine, you can read my take on the topic there. We probably shouldn't divert attention from Steven's zodiac-based thread any further.

[Robert Vermaat]

We probably shouldn't divert attention from Steven's zodiac-based thread any further.

Agreed! :wink:

[antiochus]

George wrote: Could you make a clear, brief description of the system you propose and the evidence you base it on?

It’s about 367 A4 pages with 80 diagrams so I need to post the whole thing on the net to fully explain it. So truthfully I have no idea what is the best way of compressing it. In its basic form the orbit of the fixed stars governs the size of the tribes and therefore the legion.

George wrote: What eras of the Roman history do you try to encompass in it?

500 BC to 200 AD, plus some appendices. I would love to start the book with “once upon a time” but was not a good idea.

George wrote: I read the posts thus far, but I would appreciate a complete formulation of the main points of your proposal, if one is possible, before I can say anything about it.

Are you that confident that you can make a judgement from a proposal?

Robert wrote: Sadly, no. The publishing date of Zosimus is somewhere in the 5th century, but we don't know exactly when. He may have lived under Anastasios but his work does not continue beyond the year 410.

My mistake, I meant to ask what was the campaign year Zosimus refers to when he mentions the 6000 men organised into five regiments. I hope we do know this information.

Sean wrote: Humh, then I don't understand. You just claimed that one man in a cohort equaled one degree of a spherical, geocentric cosmos, and that the number of men in a cohort times the length of one degree of the earth's circumference equals the number of men in the tribes. That certainly sounds like relating the number of men in the tribes to the circumference of the earth to me!

One more time. :grin: The Roman cosmos system is a straight line in a circle. The circle is the zodiac, the straight line is the planets. However, I have been discussing the zodiac which is a 360 degrees circle containing 12 zodiacs of 30 degrees. Under Augustus 16 zodiacs have past the zenith, which means one orbit of the zodiac has been completed (360 degrees) and four zodiacs (120 degrees) of the new or second orbit have passed the zenith. So how does 16 zodiacs equating to 336,000 stadia or 480 degrees have anything to do with the circumference of the earth which is 252,000 stadia? I cannot fathom your conclusions?

If I add to my statement a tribe numbered during the reign of Augustus 9600 men (4800 iuniores and 4800 seniores) and include Livy’s (1 43) statement:

“Nor need it occasion any surprise, that the arrangement which now exists since the completion of the thirty-five tribes, their number being doubled by the centuries of juniors and seniors, does not agree with the total as instituted by Servius Tullius.”

What Livy is saying is that during his days, which coincides with the reign of Augustus the number of centuries in the tribes had doubled. Is this true or is Livy living up to his unfounded reputation of being unreliable? By halving 9600 men (4800 iuniores and 4800 seniores) the result is 4800 men (2400 iuniores and 2400 seniores). For the campaign of 462 BC, Dionysius (9 69-71) has four cohorts of 600 men deployed before the gates of Rome. Now 600 men multiplied by four equals 2400 men. If people want to indulge themselves in the fact this is all mathematical coincidence they have my blessing. I am not interested in convincing them otherwise, or persuading them to change their religion. But in my defence, there has been no investigation into whether there is a relation between the Roman military and their cosmos, so therefore, no one is in a position to rule it out until such an investigation has been conducted. That is why my critics amuse me.

Sean wrote: The figure of 700 stadia is Eratosthenes' estimate of the length of 1/360th of the earth's circumference (cited by Strabo, Geography, 2.34); one degree of the circumference of the orbit of the fixed stars would be much longer.

Is it? Can you prove it? A circle is 360 degrees and that is what the zodiac is…a circle. Sean if you think its all about the circumference of the earth, I am happy for you. But my work is about the zodiac and the orbit of those planets known to the ancients. I spent last year trying to establish a link between the circumference of the earth and the Roman system and there is none that I could find. The system predates Eratosthene.

Mr Campbell wrote: The point is that his idea has found its way into the mainstream, to such an extent that Steven (in this thread) imagines that the 1,200-man legion is as good as an established fact.

Oh Mr. Campbell, I always give people the benefit of the doubt that they have possibly rehabilitated themselves, but alas our relationship is always the same with you twisting the facts. In my mind, a 1200 man legion is “not an established fact.” Yes, my numbers do come up with six classes at 1200 men per class but that is not conclusive. I started this thread seeking information on the possibility. I am fast learning that there is a lot of confusion and contradiction.

Mr. Campbell wrote: Anyhow, if you subscribe to Ancient Warfare magazine, you can read my take on the topic there. We probably shouldn't divert attention from Steven's zodiac-based thread any further.

Oh I’m quite happy not to discuss the zodiac. I want to get a better understanding of the problems surrounding the late Roman army. As to your article as I haven’t read it, do you discuss and dissect Isidore’s legion of 60 centuries, 30 maniples and 12 cohorts? Or are you one of the many academics that dismiss Isidore as being highly unreliable. I gave my outline of Isidore’s legion in this thread which shows I have no problem complying with his legion organisation, nor those numbers given by Ammianus in accordance with Isidore’s legion organisation. Maybe you would like to acknowledge my contribution in a positive manner. Stupid of me to ask, so I will refrain the question. What is wrong with my interpretation of Isidore’s legion organisation coupled with Ammainus numbers of 300 men and 500 man units? If you believe it is unfounded, then why? So far not one reply has done that, so I am curious as to why the silence. As I am RAT’s astronomical madman and attract ridicule, no one should have a problem telling me why it does not stand up to scrutiny.


Steven

[Macedon]

Well... I can hardly take any position at all or help in any way I can if I do not understand the core of the proposal. "Judge" is a highly strong word and I deliberately did not use it, since comments can be of a non-judgemental, constructive nature. As I understand thus far, you suggest that the way the Romans perceived the cosmos, where by cosmos you mean the heavenly bodies and their relation to earth and each other, governed the numbers and sizes of many administrative issues like the number of tribes, their population (which would have been controlled so that it would correspond to these numbers), as well as their military organization regarding the structure of their legions, the sizes of the legions' subdivisions in every branch of the army, maybe even the number of levied legions? And this would have been the case from 500 BC to 200 AD with every change obeying to these heavenly mathematical relations in order to be accepted. Have I understood it correctly thus far?

[D B Campbell]

Oh Mr. Campbell, I always give people the benefit of the doubt that they have possibly rehabilitated themselves, ...

A laudable, if slightly patronising, goal.

Are you one of the many academics that dismiss Isidore as being highly unreliable.

It is worth bearing in mind that Isidore is a very late writer whose sources are not known and whose approach to etymology is sometimes surprising. When he writes (for example) that Augustus was so named because he enlarged the territory of the Republic (assuming a link with augere, "to enlarge"), we know that he's wrong. When he writes that successive emperors were called Caesars because they had long hair (an imagined link with caesaries, meaning "long hair"), we realise that he is being fanciful. When he writes that a soldier is called a miles because there were traditionally a thousand (mille) of them, we start to wonder at Isidore's capacity for invention. So we are naturally wary when he writes that "a legion is six thousand armed men, so called from the word electo [ "selected" ], as though they were chosen, that is chosen to bear arms. ... The legion has sixty centuries, thirty maniples, twelve cohorts, two-hundred squadrons." Is this a rare gem amongst Isidore's other nonsense? (He elsewhere claims that there are 6,600 men in a legion.)

[Sean Manning]

Steven, you seem to be under a misapprehension (You said "In my defence, there has been no investigation into whether there is a relation between the Roman military and their cosmos, so therefore, no one is in a position to rule it out until such an investigation has been conducted.") Its not other people's job to disprove your theory, its your job to convince them! If the tidbits you let slip can't stand up to some gentle questions, perhaps you need to rethink how you explain your ideas rather than retreating under a cloud of “I'm not trying to convince anyone, and I have secret arguments that prove that I am right.”

Since you haven't answered my questions, I won't ask them again. I don't feed trolls.

[Renatus]

So we are naturally wary when he writes that "a legion is six thousand armed men, so called from the word electo [ "selected" ], as though they were chosen, that is chosen to bear arms. ... The legion has sixty centuries, thirty maniples, twelve cohorts, two-hundred squadrons." Is this a rare gem amongst Isidore's other nonsense? (He elsewhere claims that there are 6,600 men in a legion.)

Dr. Campbell quotes from Isid. Etymol. 9.3.46-47. The latter paragraph reads,"Legio habet . . . turmas ducentas". A cavalry legion of 200 turmae: that's something to think about! Elsewhere, Isidorus states that a century has 100 men (Etymol. 9.3.48), a maniple has 200 men (Etymol. 9.3.50), a turma has 30 horsemen (Etymol. 9.3.51), and a cohort has 500 soldiers (Etymol. 9.3.52). It seems highly likely that all he did was to extract these figures from various sources and to divide them into his 6000-strong legion to produce the numbers in Etymol. 9.3.47.

[Nathan Ross]

Its not other people's job to disprove your theory, its your job to convince them!

I think this is the root of the problem here. There is a difference between legal practice and historical or scientific methodology. Under law, an idea or theory is held to stand (i.e. be thought at least plausible) unless evidence can be produced to disprove it. In historical method, an idea must be supported by evidence to be held to stand (i.e. be thought plausible).

Many people seem far more familiar with legal rather than historical method, and this leads to many unsupported theories being put forward, especially on the internet. If evidence can be advanced then discussion can follow. If not, not.

[antiochus]

Mr Campbell wrote: So we are naturally wary when he writes that "a legion is six thousand armed men, so called from the word electo [ "selected" ], as though they were chosen, that is chosen to bear arms. ... The legion has sixty centuries, thirty maniples, twelve cohorts, two-hundred squadrons." Is this a rare gem amongst Isidore's other nonsense? (He elsewhere claims that there are 6,600 men in a legion.)

You ask if Isidore’s description of the legion’s organisation is “a rare gem amongst Isidore's other nonsense.” My answer is yes. Isidore’s legion of 6600 men is not an isolated figure. One of the references to the Theban legion also numbers 6600 men. Roth in his paper on the size of the Imperial legion quotes a fragment of Suetonius claiming a legion numbered 5600 men. The common denominator is all of these examples is the number 600. There is a pattern in play which needs further investigation rather than rejection on the grounds it does not conform to modern opinions of the Roman legion.

I’ve already in this posting shown that Isidore’s claim of a 6000 man legion numbering 12 cohorts of 500 men is correct. All legions have more than one organisation. Isidore’s statement a legion numbered 60 centuries and 30 maniples is quite feasible. Isidore also adds that a maniple numbered 200 men. Therefore, 6000 men equates to 30 maniples at 200 men, with a maniple consisting of two centuries of 100 men. Now, to back this up, I’m sorry but I have to use the zodiac. In the 4800 man legion, which would equate to 30 maniples at 160 men (two 80 man centuries) I showed that a tribe consisting of 9600 men (4800 iuniores and 4800 seniores). In its basic form, a 6000 man legion is organised into 10 cohorts of 600 men. A 600 man cohort multiplied by 700 stadia per degree produces 420,000 stadia. The figure of 420,000 stadia is converted to 420,000 men then divided by the 35 tribes. Therefore each tribe numbers 12,000 men, which is divided into 6000 iuniores and 6000 seniores. So in regard to the iuniores, we have an increase of 1200 men since the legion of 4800 men. The additional 1200 men when divided by 30 maniples, each maniple will increase by 40 men and each century by 20 men. Therefore, the 160 man maniple in the 4800 legion will increase to 200 men per maniple in the 6000 man legion. A figure of 200 men per maniple is stipulated by Isidore. And let’s not forget Ammianus has the army forming up in cohorts, maniples and centuries.

The next issue is to explain why a legion is given at 6600 men. The answer to this is explained by Vegetius who states the cavalry is on the same roll of the legions - 6600 men divided by 60 centuries produces a century of 110 men. The additional 10 men are the cavalry, which number 600 men. Now I have already mentioned that the number of squadrons in the cavalry is equivalent to the number of zodiacs. So a 600 man cohort equates to 20 zodiacs (600 degrees divided by 30 degrees per zodiac). Therefore, the 600 men is organised into 20 squadrons at 30 men a squadron. Isidore’s number of 200 squadrons is a copyist mistake for 20 squadrons. In conclusion, Isidore’s 6000 man legion represents the infantry and Isidore’s 6600 men includes the cavalry, as does the Theban legion of 6600 men.

Ok, so how does Isidore stand up to scrutiny? Isidore claims a century numbered 100 men, a maniple 200 men and a cavalry squadron 30 men. Does this look like someone who as one poster claims has “to extract these figures from various sources and to divide them into his 6000-strong legion to produce the numbers in Etymol.”


Sean Manning wrote: Since you haven't answered my questions, I won't ask them again. I don't feed trolls.

How dare you accuse me of trolling! I have answered your question to the best of my ability. Here it is again. The Roman cosmos system has nothing to do with the circumference of the earth. Because you don’t like the answer, this does not give you the right to resort to sarcasm.


Macedon wrote: As I understand thus far, you suggest that the way the Romans perceived the cosmos, where by cosmos you mean the heavenly bodies and their relation to earth and each other, governed the numbers and sizes of many administrative issues like the number of tribes, their population (which would have been controlled so that it would correspond to these numbers), as well as their military organization regarding the structure of their legions, the sizes of the legions' subdivisions in every branch of the army, maybe even the number of levied legions? And this would have been the case from 500 BC to 200 AD with every change obeying to these heavenly mathematical relations in order to be accepted. Have I understood it correctly thus far?
Ok, now I understand your question. I’ll give a summary rather than itemise your question as this way I can explained it better. The number of tribes is governed by another mathematical principal explained in the primary sources (ancient mathematical sources). The size and organisation of a tribe is governed by the orbit of the zodiac. The number of stadia travelled by the zodiac determines the number of men in the tribes. The orbit of the zodiac takes centuries to complete and this is why Virgil refers to it as the roll call of the centuries. When the tribes are bought into line with the zodiac, which occurs at a specific time frame (centuries) the tribes are increased and because of the increase the legion will also increase due to the legion mirroring the organisation of the tribes.

Macedon wrote: And this would have been the case from 500 BC to 200 AD with every change obeying to these heavenly mathematical relations in order to be accepted.

That is correct but the reference to 500 BC is rounded for aesthetics. However, between these intervals of change, the Romans can and have changed the internal organisation of the legion. The size of the legion remains the same but the horizontal and vertical organisation can be modified which will produce units of differing sizes from those that had gone before. My question regarding the Late Roman legion consisting of six units of 1200 men was because the data regarding the cosmos system indicates this is wrong as the system should cease after a period of 1200 years, and six units of 1200 men is going beyond that time frame. The reason for 1200 years is the Romans had a prophecy that if they survived their first 120 years, the gods would protect them for 1200 years. The 1200 years is based on 100 years for each of the 12 vultures Romulus sighted when he founded Rome. I have no idea when this prophecy was introduced, but Livy writes that after the sack of Rome the first thing the newly elected consular tribunes did was conducted a religious investigation. The investigation showed that one of the consular tribunes at the Allia did not conduct proper religious services before the battle. I believe this consular tribune was made a scapegoat in order to maintain belief in the prophecy. By compiling the size of the various units for the Late Roman army and because Ammianus states the army still formed up into cohorts, maniples and centuries, I have my evidence the system is only designed for 1200 years. In that 1200 year period there is one forced change to the Roman cosmos system. This has to do with the science of the times, especially in regard to the position of the sun. The result of this is the Romans recalculate and the adjust their cosmos which alters the tribes, which results in the maniple legion. The maniple legion signifies the old from the new.