Zodiac and Late Roman Army Organisation

[antiochus]

Mr Campbell wrote: 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.

Well the bits I like are his references to numbers. I don’t have the inclination to discuss Isidore’s non military material as it would take years. I have shown that 6000 men can be organised into 60 centuries, 30 maniples and 12 cohorts. And it can also be organised into 10 cohorts of 600 men. Why should the Romans limit themselves to one organisation?

Mr Campbell wrote: 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.

This then begs the question, why did he use the figure of 6000?

Mr Campbell wrote: 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.

I’m putting forward a proposal…a theory…that somewhere the Romans are basing it originally on the number 6000.

Mr Campbell wrote: Have you even looked at the primary evidence?

You stated the numbers for the Theban legion were more untrustworthy than Isidore. I asked why believing you had knowledge of the reasons and all I get is you reply with a question. Are there any sources you do trust?

Mr Campbell wrote: 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 sources for the three numbers given for the Theban legion are Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons, In Dupraz, Appendice I, A1 3 cites 6600 men. Interpolation C Explicit 6585 men, Appendices II, Folio 204 cites 6666 men, and Appendices III, Folio 367 gives 6660 men. In “The Theban Legion of St. Maurice,” Donald F. O’Reilly, Vigiliae Christianae Volume 32 No. 3, (September 1978), pp 195-207

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

My statement centred on the 6666 legion, the 6600 legion and the 5600 legion. Why are you hijacking this?

Robert wrote: Interesting. When Isidore fits your theory, you declare him trustworthy. When Vegetius doesn't, you suggest he's not?

I have never stated Vegetius is untrustworthy. I find it pointless making judgements about ancient historians. I was asking Renatus’ about his stance on Vegetius.

Robert wrote: 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.

It’s a theory Robert based on numbers from Ammianus. I put if forward a theory, of which you also acknowledge is a theory, so why the hostility? And for the record, here is what I wrote: “Ammianus has references to 800 men to man the fleets, so this could possibly work out to one 500 man vexillation and one 300 man cohort: example a vexillation consisting of centuries A1 to A5 plus cohort six (centuries A6, B6 and C6).

Robert wrote: 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.

Come on Robert. How can you accuse of cherry picking when I have already given my reasons as to the difference between the figure of 6000 and 6600. Please read posting 300410:

300410. “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…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.”

Robert wrote: 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?

I’m still trying to determine what the standard unit is. I’m feeding in figures and computing the many organisational possibilities but I’m starting to come to the conclusion units of 3000 men subdivided into 10 units of 300 men and six units of 500 men.

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

I was just seeking your outlook on Vegetius. Nothing sinister intended. For the record I have no problem with Vegetius. I did once but that has been sorted out. I have no interest in labelling a source trustworthy or not. I am more interested in how they arrived at their figures. I like to experiment with the numbers and see what happens. So as an EXPERIMENT I interpret Vegetius statement that 32 cavalrymen are governed by one decurion to mean a squadron numbered 33 men. Now if you take Isidore’s claim a squadron numbered 30 men, then this could indicate the officers have been omitted. Of the additional three men to make 33 men, one man COULD BE the stand bearer.

I then take Vegetius cavalry figure of 726 men and divided it by 33 men to get 22 squadrons. However, Vegetius allocates 66 cavalry to a cohort (two squadrons), an indication the legion has 11 cohorts. Now by taking the premise a legion follows its traditional organisation of 10 cohorts and there is no milliary first cohort as found in Vegetius’ model, the cavalry with officers numbers 660 men (729 minus 66 = 660 men divided by 10 cohorts = 66 cavalry per cohort). To continue the exercise, let’s introduce the Theban legion figure of 6666 men and from this subtract 660 cavalry, to leave a figure of 6006 infantry, which (remember this is an exercise, theory etc.) could equate to 6000 infantry and six military tribunes. So does this exercise have merit?

[M. Demetrius]

Nathan, you're correct. -um nouns, neuter singular, almost universally end in -a, neuter plural. But I'm no expert either.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Give me a few hours to go back through a couple forums on another site and I can have better explanations.

Also, for Limitanei I meant garrisons for border forts etc.

And about Vegetius, he is accurate for some things for other things he is not. His description of the legion and Unit sizes is not accurate; 6000 men to a legion would make the late army number almost a million men. In actuality we could estimate it numbered about 90000 maximum for each half of the empire. And that varies depending on what unit sizes you use etc.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

[..] 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).

There was also another term, can't remember though but I think it started with a P and it meant command over the limitanei garrisons.

Also, you are right. Palatina were named Seniores and Iuniores USUALLY, but not always. The Cornuti Seniores, for example, were a high-grade infantry unit that shifted stations but were usually seen in Gaul under Julian through Aetius. But the Cornuti Iuniores I think were a cavalry Unit in Italy or Africa, not sure. (I don't have access to my ND link right now.)

Also, about the Magister Peditum and Equitum - what sources really do we have for those ranks, because in most cases it seems it was Just Magister Militum. (As in MAgister Militum per Gallias, Tracium, Itallias, Hispaniensis, etc.)

[Renatus]

There was also another term, can't remember though but I think it started with a P and it meant command over the limitanei garrisons.

Are you thinking of praepositus limitis, perhaps?

[Nathan Ross]

There was also another term, can't remember though but I think it started with a P and it meant command over the limitanei garrisons.

Are you thinking of praepositus limitis, perhaps?

There's also praeses - this was an equestrian governor from the mid third century onwards. There's some evidence that (at least under the tetrarchy) they were still commanding troops - an inscription to Aurelius Arpagius, praeses of Britannia Secunda under Constantius, on Hadrian's Wall.

Shortly afterwards, command of limitanei garrisons was given to the regional Dux and separated completely from civil control. Individual limitaei legions were commanded by the praefectus legionis, as mentioned above.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

There was also another term, can't remember though but I think it started with a P and it meant command over the limitanei garrisons.

Are you thinking of praepositus limitis, perhaps?

Yep, that's the words.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

There was also another term, can't remember though but I think it started with a P and it meant command over the limitanei garrisons.

Are you thinking of praepositus limitis, perhaps?

There's also praeses - this was an equestrian governor from the mid third century onwards. There's some evidence that (at least under the tetrarchy) they were still commanding troops - an inscription to Aurelius Arpagius, praeses of Britannia Secunda under Constantius, on Hadrian's Wall.

Shortly afterwards, command of limitanei garrisons was given to the regional Dux and separated completely from civil control. Individual limitaei legions were commanded by the praefectus legionis, as mentioned above.

Yes, I memorized all of the Duces and Comes positions. There's so many it's pretty much obvious that the limitanei cohors et legiones were commanded by duces...

Although their still seemed to be a Dux in command of all the Duces, for each praefecture. Aegidius comes to mind.

[ValentinianVictrix]

I'd be very, very careful about stating that the legions during the Late Roman period were less than a theoretical strength of 6000 strong. Onur's paper on those Perge stones may throw a curved ball at those whose belief it is that the legion was about 1200 strong, even Onur is trying to put a spin on it by saying that the stones refer to a 'double legion' as the numbers do not subscribe to the current paradigm.

It's often claimed that the auxilia units in the Late Roman army were only 500 men strong. If this is so then there is a real problem with this number as Silvanius took 8000 auxilliaries with him on a journey in Gaul according to Ammianus. Now, if these auxilliaries are not mercenary Franks then this would have added upto an astonishing 16 units of auxilia!!! I am more inclined to the idea of the auxilia units being around the 800-1000 man mark at that time, which gives a more credible 8 to 10 units accompanying Silvanius.

[Nathan Ross]

It's often claimed that the auxilia units in the Late Roman army were only 500 men strong...Silvanius took 8000 auxilliaries with him on a journey in Gaul according to Ammianus. Now, if these auxilliaries are not mercenary Franks then this would have added upto an astonishing 16 units of auxilia!!!

It might be worth considering that the situation was the same under the principiate - cohors quingenaria were (supposedly) 500 strong, and if the auxiliary force was intended to match the legion strength in an army (which is debatable, I know), that would involve a lot of different individual units: four legions, for example, would need to be supported by 48 cohors quingenaria! Even allowing for the probable use of vexillations rather than full legions, and cohors millaria, that's still a lot of cohorts.

Also, wasn't Silvanius the Magister Equitum for Gaul? The N.D. gives, I think, almost exactly 16 auxilia palatina units under his command. This might be a coincidence, but suggests that he could have had such a force available to him...

[ValentinianVictrix]

It's often claimed that the auxilia units in the Late Roman army were only 500 men strong...Silvanius took 8000 auxilliaries with him on a journey in Gaul according to Ammianus. Now, if these auxilliaries are not mercenary Franks then this would have added upto an astonishing 16 units of auxilia!!!

It might be worth considering that the situation was the same under the principiate - cohors quingenaria were (supposedly) 500 strong, and if the auxiliary force was intended to match the legion strength in an army (which is debatable, I know), that would involve a lot of different individual units: four legions, for example, would need to be supported by 48 cohors quingenaria! Even allowing for the probable use of vexillations rather than full legions, and cohors millaria, that's still a lot of cohorts.

Also, wasn't Silvanius the Magister Equitum for Gaul? The N.D. gives, I think, almost exactly 16 auxilia palatina units under his command. This might be a coincidence, but suggests that he could have had such a force available to him...

If Silvanius took all the Auxilia Palatina units with him that would have meant stripping the provinces defences at a very dangerous time in Gaul, and would have sent very large warning signs to Constantius II!

[Nathan Ross]

If Silvanius took all the Auxilia Palatina units with him that would have meant stripping the provinces defences at a very dangerous time in Gaul, and would have sent very large warning signs to Constantius II!

Hmm, but I thought Silvanus at this point (the ref is in Book XVI, but chronologically the incident must fall in XV) had originally been sent to Gaul with an army specifically to repel invaders - so he would have had a lot of troops available to him. Actually he was the Magister Peditum, not Equitum. But it's a rather confusing episode anyway, since Ammianus doesn't make it clear when Silvanus led these 8000 men - his point is that Julian decided to emulate him at some later date.

But anyway, this is probably a bit of a digression here! :wink:

[D B Campbell]

I'd be very, very careful about stating that the legions during the Late Roman period were less than a theoretical strength of 6000 strong. Onur's paper on those Perge stones may throw a curved ball at those whose belief it is that the legion was about 1200 strong, ...

Unfortunately, none but a select few have seen this inscription, so we cannot really comment in any sensible way. However, the sheer number of units called legions in the ND almost guarantees that, on the whole, they must have been smaller than imperial legions.

It's often claimed that the auxilia units in the Late Roman army were only 500 men strong.

I think (I may be wrong) that Nicasie suggests 800. In any case, Steven's theory concerns the legions, so auxiliary evidence is irrelevant.

I have shown that 6000 men can be organised into 60 centuries, 30 maniples and 12 cohorts. And it can also be organised into 10 cohorts of 600 men. Why should the Romans limit themselves to one organisation? ... This then begs the question, why did he use the figure of 6000?

12 cohorts?! hock: And different legions organised in different ways?! hock:

I'm not sure why you set such store by Isidore's evidence. We've already pointed out how unreliable he is. On the latter point, you are actually correct: his evidence does raise the question of "why 6000?" But that's a question that you must answer, as it's you who have decided to trust Isidore.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Adrian,

I'd be very, very careful about stating that the legions during the Late Roman period were less than a theoretical strength of 6000 strong. Onur's paper on those Perge stones may throw a curved ball at those whose belief it is that the legion was about 1200 strong, even Onur is trying to put a spin on it by saying that the stones refer to a 'double legion' as the numbers do not subscribe to the current paradigm.

it may, and it may not. I would love to read that article and the full text of the inscription. Remember, the ‘current paradigm’ is not exactly based on guesswork either (or the zodiac for that matter), but on a number of sources. And of course, as there is no evidence for a unified Roman unit strength applicable to each and every unit, these numbers seem to have varied, and the possibility exists that some individual border legions were left intact where others were split up or newly created with a lower strength. But so far, the evidence for small(er) legions seems pretty secure, the most of what we don’t understand is how small they were, how they arrived at that number or how much smaller the Diocletianic new units were.

It's often claimed that the auxilia units in the Late Roman army were only 500 men strong. If this is so then there is a real problem with this number as Silvanius took 8000 auxilliaries with him on a journey in Gaul according to Ammianus. Now, if these auxilliaries are not mercenary Franks then this would have added upto an astonishing 16 units of auxilia!!! I am more inclined to the idea of the auxilia units being around the 800-1000 man mark at that time, which gives a more credible 8 to 10 units accompanying Silvanius.

Indeed, this is confusing. Is he referring to auxiliaries or to the new elite Auxilia Palatina units? If the former, the word should be ‘foedrati’ or terms like that, because one can’t see those Palatina units as ‘auxiliaries’ anymore. They were, with the Scholae units, the core of the Imperial field armies, after all.

To answer your question, I think that Ammianus (as he was wont to do) used archaising languages and really meant Germanuc federates instead of elite Palatina units.

[Nathan Ross]

one can’t see those Palatina units as ‘auxiliaries’ anymore. They were, with the Scholae units, the core of the Imperial field armies, after all.

But surely Silvanus was in command of just such an imperial field army at the time? He was the Magister Peditum, sent to Gaul (with an army, perhaps?) to drive out barbarian invaders. The incident later emulated by Julian (Amm.Mar XVI) surely occured when Silvanus 'was traversing Gaul in the service of the state and repelling the barbarians, who had now lost all their courage and confidence' (XV,5). So it was before he had rebelled, or even considered rebelling!

The latin for Silvanus' command is octo auxiliarium milibus - not very helpful!