Zodiac and Late Roman Army Organisation

[Renatus]

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.

But Vegetius' legion comprises 6,826 men - 6,100 infantry and 726 cavalry (Veg.2.6.9).

[Macedon]

But a Polybian Roman legion was formed by 1,200 Hastati+1,200 Principes+1,200 Velites+600 Triarii = 4,200 infantry plus 300 cavalry.

And the system Livy describes for the Romans of the 4th century BC makes up a legion of 5,000 infantrymen, at least according to Connolly, I did not look up Livy myself yet on that matter.

Caesarean legions are also about 5,500 men 120 cavalry included.

I did not see these numbers appear in your posts. Do they agree with your theory? Does any number agree as long as it can be divided by 60 or 6? Or is 12 the key number (the signs of the Zodiac)?

Also, I am troubled by the relationship of the tribe population with something naturally fixed. Does this mean that the population should heva been controlled, sometimes decreased other times increased in order to always agree with the mathematical-astrological rule that governed them? And what about legions levied from non-tribal Roman population (whether of Roman citizens or allies)? Were these somehow included in these equations?

In all, what are the key numbers you think should be evident in this theory and how rigid do you take the Roman adherence to your proposed system to be?

[D B Campbell]

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.

5,600 doesn't divide by 600.

I’ve already in this posting shown that Isidore’s claim of a 6000 man legion numbering 12 cohorts of 500 men is correct.

I can't see where you've proved Isidore's figures. Please enlighten me.

Isidore’s statement a legion numbered 60 centuries and 30 maniples is quite feasible.

Quite feasible isn't the same as "true".

Now, to back this up, I’m sorry but I have to use the zodiac.

I must confess that I simply cannot fathom your zodiac-and-stadia explanations. Perhaps a diagram of some sort would help?

And let’s not forget Ammianus has the army forming up in cohorts, maniples and centuries.

That's not strictly true. Ammianus uses these three terms without explaining their relationship to one another. Nor does he always list them in the "correct" order. Nor does he restrict the term manipulus to the Romans; the Persians are grouped in maniples, too. It may be that Ammianus thought that a "handful" of men could legitimately be called a manipulus. (Vegetius equates the maniple with the old contubernium, suggesting that he made the same assumption.)

Isidore’s number of 200 squadrons is a copyist mistake for 20 squadrons.

There is no indication of a mistake here in the textual tradition. There are no manuscript variations. In any case, why would a copyist write ducentas when he meant viginti? Renatus has given a far more plausible explanation (that 200 x 30 = 6,000).

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.

Are you aware of the problems of using the Theban legion to support your argument? (i.e. the source is even less trustworthy than Isidore.)

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.”

Yes. I couldn't have put it better myself.

[Robert Vermaat]

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

Which Theban legion? The hagiographic unit of Christian martyrs? That’s no information about a real legion but a Christian fairy-tale – besides, the number of that unit is far more often given as 6666, not 6600. The information about the several Late Roman units of that name is consistent with all of them being much smaller Diocletianic legions. That 5600 of Suetonius is a typo? If not 5600 is not a denominator of 600.

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).

But you have not.
1) In Isidore’s time, such old-style limitanei legions did not exist anywhere near him, the closest, if still organised like that, being in Egypt. His theoretical knowledge must go back on documents perhaps over a century old.
2) It’s already been mentioned here that Isidore used more than one source, with conflicting information.
3) The maniple is not a sub-unit known after the 3rd century. Ammianus uses archaizing words throughout his work: his swords are gladii, his Persians are Parthi, etc. But we lack any evidence for the maniple as a sub-unit, in contrst with the legion, the cohort, the cuneas, the numerus, etc.
4) Seniores and iuniores did not serve in one unit, as I told they didn’t. You made that up.

Concluding: you did not prove that Isidore was right, and you are making up what the Late Roman Army organisation looked like. It’s OK to ask for information here on this forum, but if you consistently ignore all the information that you receive, why would you or anyone of us bother?

[Macedon]

Hmm... maybe one should concentrate on seeing if this theory actually works for periods we do know more about? What is the point of debating on its application to late Roman legions if it cannot adequately explain pre-Polybian, Polybian, Marian and Caesarean legions, whose organization is much clearer? I guess that if this system could somehow encompass them all in a theoretical-mathematical-religious-symbolical-magical frame, then its application to later eras might be possible even if not provable since there are many gaps in our knowledge of this era anyway...

Do not forget guys that the point of this thread was to give information on the late Roman army organization, which means that Antiochus is also uncertain. His effort to make numbers fit is understandable, the problem is no one is sure of any numbers, so anyone saying they do not and Antiochus saying they do is a bit problematic, due to lack of reliable evidence.

I am myself more concerned with the model and its predictions rather than its application at this stage. I try to understand what this model predicts as to the sizes of the various Roman units and their divisions. I have not yet understood whether this theory says that a legion should be formed by such divisions and such numbers and then check whether it really is, that is whether it predicts or whether it just maintains that certain mathematical relationships should be obeyed, like a unit being made up in multiples of 6 or 12 or 600, the number of units in a legion obeying to such rules too etc, which would mean that as a system it would try to explain and not predict. Of course to predict means that the system should be constant as long as the system's variables are unchanged, in which case, it is these variables that should be presented. If it is just to explain, then it needs huge literary backup, to prove that there was indeed a link and we should not really care as to whether it was always applied. Using the same explanation for a 1,000 year period is very problematic. Things, perceptions, the understanding of the world, the cosmos, religious doctrines, the piety of the generals, the reformers, the emperors, the senators would vary and deviations are certain to arise.

Most if not all armies obeyed to certain mathematical rules, which usually were governed by the suggested size of files and half-files. It could be 2,4,6,10,12... this is not strange. Linking it to the Zodiac or any other symbolic/religious/ritualistic source is not against the logic of the ancient era and could be viewed more liberally, as an effort to link the earthy with the divine. Which is more important is anyone's guess and would have varied.

[Nathan Ross]

I managed a speed-read of Nicasie in the library today, and noted a couple of interesting points that might apply at least generally to the topic of late army organisation, beyond what's already been stated here.

Nicasie claims that there is evidence for the number of contubernia being reduced from ten in the principiate to six in the later empire. Annoyingly, I failed to note the reference for this (I wasn't in a very academic mood!), but I believe he's referring to the size of barracks in later forts.

If this is true, and not one of the 'factoids' Duncan mentioned above, it might suggest an interesting expansion: six 8-man contubernia would give a centuria of 48 men. A cohort would therefore be 288 men and a legion 2880 men. All these figures are, of course, very vague and approximate, but the total number is close to Nicasie's own estimate of the size of an old-style border legion in the later empire (approx 3000). Presumably this is how he reached that figure (?), but the possible maintenance of the old unit structure with reduced numbers is interesting nevertheless.

[D B Campbell]

Nicasie claims that there is evidence for the number of contubernia being reduced from ten in the principate to six in the later empire. Annoyingly, I failed to note the reference for this (I wasn't in a very academic mood!), but I believe he's referring to the size of barracks in later forts.

Probably referring to the early third century evidence from South Shields and Vindolanda. Note that this explicitly refers to auxiliary organisation (which, interestingly, is at odds with the documentary evidence from third century Dura Europos).

See: N. Hodgson & P. Bidwell, "Auxiliary barracks in a new light: recent discoveries on Hadrian's Wall", Britannia 35 (2004), pp. 121-157 (http://www.jstor.org/pss/4128624)

[antiochus]

Renatus wrote: But Vegetius' legion comprises 6,826 men - 6,100 infantry and 726 cavalry (Veg.2.6.9).

Are you implying Vegetius is a trustworthy source?

Mr Campbell wrote: I can't see where you've proved Isidore's figures. Please enlighten me.

6000 men can be divided into 12 to produce 12 cohorts of 500 men, 6000 men divided by 60 centuries produces 60 centuries of 100 men and 6000 men divided by 30 maniples produces 30 maniples of 200 men. All these numbers comply with Isidore. Add to this if you spilt the 6000 men into two units of 3000 men, the 3000 men can be horizontally organised into six vexillations of 500 men or three vexillations of 1000 men and 10 cohorts of 300 men. These later numbers (500 and 300) comply with Ammianus and Lydus. Therefore, Isidore’s mathematics is trustworthy. Maybe we need a maths teacher as an independent arbitrator.

Mr Campbell wrote: There is no indication of a mistake here in the textual tradition. There are no manuscript variations. In any case, why would a copyist write ducentas when he meant viginti? Renatus has given a far more plausible explanation (that 200 x 30 = 6,000).

200 x 30 does equal 6000. So are you now advocating maniples of 200 men?

Mr Campbell wrote: Are you aware of the problems of using the Theban legion to support your argument? (i.e. the source is even less trustworthy than Isidore.)

Ok, why are the sources for the Theban legion less trustworthy than Isidore?

Robert wrote: Which Theban legion? The hagiographic unit of Christian martyrs? That’s no information about a real legion but a Christian fairy-tale – besides, the number of that unit is far more often given as 6666, not 6600.

I am not concerned as to whether the Theban legion is a fairytale. I am interested in the numbers given for the Theban legion. They seemed to be pulled from a historical organisation. The number 6666 men as given for the Theban legion is an even better source than the 6600 men as I have found the 6666 includes the officers. However, the Theban legion numbering 6585 men is problematic and I have given up trying to understand how the source arrived at 6585 men.

Robert wrote: That 5600 of Suetonius is a typo? If not 5600 is not a denominator of 600.

Can you tell me more about the 5600 being a typo? Roth did not mention this in his paper. I will also contact him to obtain his point of view. My point about the number 600 is I meant all references end in 600, not that they are divisible by 600.

Robert wrote: But you have not.

So where mathematically have I gone wrong. I have used only those numbers supplied by Isidore 6000, 12 x 500, 200 x 30, 100 x 60.

Robert wrote: It’s already been mentioned here that Isidore used more than one source, with conflicting information.

Where does the maths conflict?

Robert wrote: Seniores and iuniores did not serve in one unit, as I told they didn’t. You made that up.

You have misunderstood me. I presented a theory that originally the men from one age division could be separated into iuniores and seniores. For example when levying the troops, the men are put into six age divisions. If one age division (the youngest) was aged 16 to 20, those aged 16 to 18 could be put into units of iuniores and those aged 18 to 20 could be placed in units of seniores. This could be done for all men of military age. I based this on information found by Tromlin I think claiming evidence of seniores aged from 25 to 60 years.

Robert wrote: Concluding: you did not prove that Isidore was right, and you are making up what the Late Roman Army organisation looked like. It’s OK to ask for information here on this forum, but if you consistently ignore all the information that you receive, why would you or anyone of us bother?

Where are Isidore’s numbers incompatible? Asking for information does not mean I have to conform to the information given. I am also allowed to question the information. I have outlined a proposal of 6000 men broken into 3000 man bodies organised into 10 cohorts of 300 men and six units of 500 men; numbers reported by Ammianus and Lydus. I have asked before what is wrong with this proposal and so far not one reply. So what am I making up?

[D B Campbell]

6000 men can be divided into 12 to produce 12 cohorts of 500 men, 6000 men divided by 60 centuries produces 60 centuries of 100 men and 6000 men divided by 30 maniples produces 30 maniples of 200 men. All these numbers comply with Isidore.

Actually, if you're hoping to "comply" with Isidore (rather than just pick out the bits that you like), you need to show that the legion has sixty centuries, thirty maniples, twelve cohorts, and two-hundred squadrons. All you have done is to agree that Isidore's arithmetic is internally consistent.

Rather than Isidore having found independent evidence of these troop strengths (from where?), it is just as likely (as Renatus suggested) that he started from a figure of 6,000 and calculated the necessary arithmetic for his choice of sub-units.

Add to this if you spilt the 6000 men into two units of 3000 men, the 3000 men can be horizontally organised into six vexillations of 500 men or three vexillations of 1000 men and 10 cohorts of 300 men. These later numbers (500 and 300) comply with Ammianus and Lydus.

Please quote or cite where Ammianus and Lydus prove that a legion of 6,000 men was organised as sub-units of 500 and 300. Any numbers of men can be detached for temporary duties, but that doesn't prove that the same numbers existed as permanent sub-units. Vexillations of 1,000 and 2,000 legionaries are often encountered, but that doesn't prove that the imperial legion was divided up into sub-units of 1,000 and 2,000.

200 x 30 does equal 6000. So are you now advocating maniples of 200 men?

No, but Isidore does. Please try to concentrate. We are all explaining to you why Isidore's testimony cannot be used in the way that you have chosen to use it.

Ok, why are the sources for the Theban legion less trustworthy than Isidore?

Have you even looked at the primary evidence? Or did you find the 6,000 number quoted on the internet? Your comment that "[the numbers quoted for the Theban legion] seemed to be pulled from a historical organisation" is a little vague.

My point about the number 600 is I meant all references end in 600, not that they are divisible by 600.

So, any number ending in 600 is acceptable for a legion? 4,600. 5,600. 6,600. :?

[Nathan Ross]

Probably referring to the early third century evidence from South Shields and Vindolanda...

See: N. Hodgson & P. Bidwell, "Auxiliary barracks in a new light: recent discoveries on Hadrian's Wall", Britannia 35 (2004), pp. 121-157 (http://www.jstor.org/pss/4128624)

Thanks - interesting. Seems there could be any number of contubernia from 5-9 in these later auxiliary forts. The article also refers to the late forts at Al-Lejjun and Dionysias, which appear to have 5-6 contubernia in their blocks. Not sure if these are legionary, 'late' or 'old style' though.

Anyone would think we have no idea how many men there actually were in a centuria... imagine the implications of that!

[Robert Vermaat]

[quote] Renatus wrote: But Vegetius' legion comprises 6,826 men - 6,100 infantry and 726 cavalry (Veg.2.6.9). Are you implying Vegetius is a trustworthy source? [/quote] Interesting. When Isidore fits your theory, you declare him trustworthy. When Vegetius doesn't, you suggest he's not?
[quote] Maybe we need a maths teacher as an independent arbitrator.[/quote] This has nothing to do with maths. You devide a legion of 6000 in a certain number of ways to arrive at a certain number for some subunits (vexillation, cohort, maniple). That's all nice, but everyone can do that, arrive at different numbers which contradict your theory. Same math, different results. It's how you 'prove' that Ammianus number of 800 for the fleet works within your theory: you break 800 down into two units 0f 300 and 500, with 'fit your math'. However, where did you find that the 800 were 2 units of 300 and 500? You invented that yourself.
[quote] Mr Campbell wrote: Are you aware of the problems of using the Theban legion to support your argument? (i.e. the source is even less trustworthy than Isidore.)[/i]
Ok, why are the sources for the Theban legion less trustworthy than Isidore?{/quote] I'm surprised that you even have to ask that question! The sources for 'the' Theban legion are religious writing, most much later, while Isidore, while sometimes misinformed, is a historian, writing about a different subject and for a different purpose. No historian would confuse the two.
[quote="antiochus" post=300536] [i]Robert wrote: Which Theban legion? The hagiographic unit of Christian martyrs? That’s no information about a real legion but a Christian fairy-tale – besides, the number of that unit is far more often given as 6666, not 6600.
I am not concerned as to whether the Theban legion is a fairytale. I am interested in the numbers given for the Theban legion. They seemed to be pulled from a historical organization. The number 6666 men as given for the Theban legion is an even better source than the 6600 men as I have found the 6666 includes the officers. However, the Theban legion numbering 6585 men is problematic and I have given up trying to understand how the source arrived at 6585 men.[/quote] As above. Of course you should be concerned about your source, for they are the first indicator of the value of the information! I mean, you could devise a theory on the number of horses in front of Roman carriages by looking at the number of reindeer in front of Santa’s sleigh! :wink: Yes, I'm exaggerating here, but do you see the point?
So, the difference between 6600 and 6666 are the officers? How did you work that out, I mean that we should never count the officers when discussing unit strength? How does that work out for ‘your' 6000-man legion, does that include the officers or not?
[quote] Robert wrote: That 5600 of Suetonius is a typo? If not 5600 is not a denominator of 600.
Can you tell me more about the 5600 being a typo? Roth did not mention this in his paper. I will also contact him to obtain his point of view. My point about the number 600 is I meant all references end in 600, not that they are divisible by 600.[/quote] I assumed the typo was yours, not that of your source. Now I'm even more confused - how can 5600 be a denominator for 600, when it's not divisible by 600? Does that mean that you use anything with the numbers '600' in them as denominators? 600, 1600, 2600, or 35754600?
[quote] Robert wrote: But you have not.
So where mathematically have I gone wrong. I have used only those numbers supplied by Isidore 6000, 12 x 500, 200 x 30, 100 x 60. [/quote] You can do numbers, I agree, but so can my 11-year old son. What you (seem to, correct me if I'm wrong) claim here is that your 'maths' somehow prove a standard number of men in the Late Roman army (or indeed in any Roman period). This, as others have pointed out, is not borne out by the evidence. that you can square it with Isidore is nice, but you can't do that for every other source we've thrown at you. So, hence my conclusion: you (still) haven't managed to prove it.
[quote] Robert wrote: It’s already been mentioned here that Isidore used more than one source, with conflicting information.
Where does the maths conflict? [/quote] Oh, as a bove, it doesn't, but neither does it prove anything. Isidore (as mentioned by Duncan) also mention 6600 for a legion. You happily ignore that, taking the 6000 as ther base for your 'maths'. But a 6600-strong legion divided in 2 will not get you the number achieved by your 6000-strong favorite. So you ignore Isidore when he mention the figure 6600. that's called cherry-picking.
[quote] Robert wrote: Seniores and iuniores did not serve in one unit, as I told they didn’t. You made that up .
You have misunderstood me. I presented a theory that originally the men from one age division could be separated into iuniores and seniores. For example when levying the troops, the men are put into six age divisions. If one age division (the youngest) was aged 16 to 20, those aged 16 to 18 could be put into units of iuniores and those aged 18 to 20 could be placed in units of seniores. This could be done for all men of military age. I based this on information found by Tromlin I think claiming evidence of seniores aged from 25 to 60 years.[/quote] That would be Tomlin? It’s a theory, no more. So you are not stating that your ‘standard’ unit was subdivided in seniores and iuniores?

[Robert Vermaat]

Nicasie claims that there is evidence for the number of contubernia being reduced from ten in the principiate to six in the later empire. Annoyingly, I failed to note the reference for this (I wasn't in a very academic mood!), but I believe he's referring to the size of barracks in later forts.

I think your haste got the better of you. :wink: Nicasie is in full support of the 8-man contubernium throughout his book. He discusses and dispills Vegetius 10-men contubernium as a mistake, but never advocates a drop to 6 men.

[Renatus]

Renatus wrote: But Vegetius' legion comprises 6,826 men - 6,100 infantry and 726 cavalry (Veg.2.6.9).

Are you implying Vegetius is a trustworthy source?

Well, you were the one who cited him in support of your theory.

Mr Campbell wrote: There is no indication of a mistake here in the textual tradition. There are no manuscript variations. In any case, why would a copyist write ducentas when he meant viginti? Renatus has given a far more plausible explanation (that 200 x 30 = 6,000).

200 x 30 does equal 6000. So are you now advocating maniples of 200 men?

I was referring to 200 turmae of 30 men each, as were you in the post to which I was responding.

[Nathan Ross]

Nicasie claims that there is evidence for the number of contubernia being reduced from ten in the principiate to six in the later empire.

I think your haste got the better of you. :wink: Nicasie is in full support of the 8-man contubernium throughout his book. He discusses and dispills Vegetius 10-men contubernium as a mistake, but never advocates a drop to 6 men.

Hasty... but not that hasty! I meant (as did Nicasie, I think) the number of contubernia (plural*) in a centuria, not the number of men in a contubernium (singular). The eight-man contubernium seems to be the only stable numerical unit. Beyond this we have only various multiples of eight, not including officers, up through the legion structure...

* this could well be my faulty latin causing the confusion!

[D B Campbell]

The eight-man contubernium seems to be the only stable numerical unit.

It's ironic that this piece of information comes from the (undated) De munitionibus castrorum treatise attributed to (Pseudo-)Hyginus. Without this source, we would all be following Vegetius' ten-man contubernium.