Zodiac and Late Roman Army Organisation

[Sean Manning]

(By the way, everything I have seen says that transport costs increased linearly with distance in preindustrial societies, not exponentially. A yoke of oxen eats the same amount of fodder whether its been walking for three days or three weeks).

I suspect the costs calculation has something to do with whether the draft animals have to pull their own feed-stuffs or get it supplied en route. If they have to pull their own as well as the kit and food of the soldiers there is a limit as to how far they can go before all they are pulling is their own food.

I am pretty sure that would only be the case for a campaign in hostile territory, or a deserted part of the empire. Moving through friendly country, I think the soldiers would collect new supplies every few days or weeks, and the smaller the force the shorter the distance supplies would have to be brought to each collection point.

If I derived it correctly, the size of a baggage train required to carry a fixed amount of supplies, plus its own food, for x days increases something like 1 / (1 - cx) for c a constant based on the ratio between the weight of a day's supplies and the capacity of each animal or bearer or wagon in the train.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

(By the way, everything I have seen says that transport costs increased linearly with distance in preindustrial societies, not exponentially. A yoke of oxen eats the same amount of fodder whether its been walking for three days or three weeks).

I suspect the costs calculation has something to do with whether the draft animals have to pull their own feed-stuffs or get it supplied en route. If they have to pull their own as well as the kit and food of the soldiers there is a limit as to how far they can go before all they are pulling is their own food.

I am pretty sure that would only be the case for a campaign in hostile territory, or a deserted part of the empire. Moving through friendly country, I think the soldiers would collect new supplies every few days or weeks, and the smaller the force the shorter the distance supplies would have to be brought to each collection point.

If I derived it correctly, the size of a baggage train required to carry a fixed amount of supplies, plus its own food, for x days increases something like 1 / (1 - cx) for c a constant based on the ratio between the weight of a day's supplies and the capacity of each animal or bearer or wagon in the train.

You're math seems to be accurate (it's obviously right). As the cost increases at a decent rate.

[Sean Manning]

I'm glad it makes sense. I hope I wasn't too enthusiastic ... I was intrigued by the idea that there would be special problems with getting too many units together,because I didn't understand it, and logistics is an interest of mine. I know I can be very blunt when discussing things sometimes!

[nikgaukroger]

But whatever the math for the logistics it isn't suggesting that 8000 men in 8-10 units is any more logical to 8000 men in 16 units - which was my point about Adrian's logic that it was.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

But whatever the math for the logistics it isn't suggesting that 8000 men in 8-10 units is any more logical to 8000 men in 16 units - which was my point about Adrian's logic that it was.

Trust me, If I pulled up the right Thread in another forum you'd wuickly come to understand.

Also, got it figured out about the Numerus and the Manipulus. I'll post a link here soon.

[nikgaukroger]

But whatever the math for the logistics it isn't suggesting that 8000 men in 8-10 units is any more logical to 8000 men in 16 units - which was my point about Adrian's logic that it was.

Trust me, If I pulled up the right Thread in another forum you'd wuickly come to understand.

Well a link to this thread in another forum, or a summary of the points in it, would be useful, as nothing posted here to date has come close to an explanation.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

But whatever the math for the logistics it isn't suggesting that 8000 men in 8-10 units is any more logical to 8000 men in 16 units - which was my point about Adrian's logic that it was.

Trust me, If I pulled up the right Thread in another forum you'd wuickly come to understand.

Well a link to this thread in another forum, or a summary of the points in it, would be useful, as nothing posted here to date has come close to an explanation.

I will, I got to get permissions first to use his information and etc.

[nikgaukroger]

Thanks - look forward to it

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Thanks - look forward to it

I got permission: Ok, here's what I can discerned based on the thread I've found:

I give Pompeius Magnus full credit for this information, it is all his work, and he spent countless hours reading and interpreting this information.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=353621

Now, Pompeius suggests that the Comitatensian Legion, as according to Zozimus, was approximately 1200 strong by AD 400), because the Dalmatian troops were 6000 strong total. But another possiblity, when interpreted, was that it was 5 detatchments of 1200, implying the Legion may have in fact been larger. It seems that the Legions were not reduced in size overall, but simply operated in Vexillations. Therefore we cannot determine a definite size of the Legion, because they were divided up in different ways (Thomas Momnensen and Seeck). Ergo Vegetius' number of 6100 infantry and 726 cavalry could indeed be correct.

Ammianus mentions that Legions also would send out detatchments of 300-500 men.

Concerning the Manipulus and the Numerus;

Vegetius, in his second Epistula, details that the term 'Manipulus' replaced the contubernium, but both still served the same function, being about 8-10 men.

Pompeius has seen that the officer called a Ducenarius, as described by Vegetius, suggests that he commanded 200 men. A Legion could not be divided into cohorts, because it could range between 800 and 1500 men based on the size of the mother unit and the number of Vexillations it was split into. The old "Manipular" system, therefore is entirely possible, but the name of the unit is unkon, (I've interpereted this next part from what he says)-> although it could be called a Numerus because Numerus simply means "Regiment" and could describe any number of men in reality.

More to come, feel free to sift through the thread and some others. I will post some refernces ont he Palantine units later. Remember, none of this is my Work, it is all his.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Evan, very interesting!

A few notes:

Now, Pompeius suggests that the Comitatensian Legion, as according to Zozimus, was approximately 1200 strong by AD 400), because the Dalmatian troops were 6000 strong total. But another possiblity, when interpreted, was that it was 5 detatchments of 1200, implying the Legion may have in fact been larger.

Well, if I read him correctly, he gives a number of 1000-1200, which is very much in line with current thinking. He does not speak of these regiments as detachments, so I take it that’s your interpretation? Your mate Pompeius als rightly notes that the strength of these new (smaller) legions cannot be evidenced.

It seems that the Legions were not reduced in size overall, but simply operated in Vexillations. Therefore we cannot determine a definite size of the Legion, because they were divided up in different ways (Thomas Momnensen and Seeck).

This is not what your friend Pompeius has concluded. Legions could and were split up. Indeed, vexillations were split from the original unit, probably never to return, but we have also occasions where legions were split up into 2 smaller units, or into 5: yes, these methods varied. It’s useless to look for a uniform method behind this, as the Roman army did not operate in such a modern manner.

I’ve noticed that your Pompeius failed to see that the system of the Old units and that of the New units (including differing names for units and officers) exited next to another, continuing partly into the 6th or even 7th century. His ‘Old Full legion’ is simply the older legion, later best referred to as the Limitanei legion, whereas the name ‘legion’ itself becomes a much more generic name for ‘regiment’ or ‘unit’.

Ergo Vegetius' number of 6100 infantry and 726 cavalry could indeed be correct.

I think not. Vegetius is still looking back at an earlier age, in which cavalry was still attached to legionary infantry. Following Vegetius in that re-attachment would go back on that development, which is unsupported by any other evidence.

Vegetius, in his second Epistula, details that the term 'Manipulus' replaced the contubernium, but both still served the same function, being about 8-10 men.

To the contrary, Vegetius claims that the contubernium of his day was formerly referred to as a ‘manipulus’.
NB: Both you and Pompeius refer to Vegetius’ contubernium as 8-10 men, but that is contrary to Vegetius, who clearly states that his contubernium counts 10 men. As this is contrary to other evidence of the basic number for a Late Roman unit (being 8), it’s one more reason to think that Vegetius looked at older sources, which he mixed with the reality of his own day, creating a difficult to separate fantasy/reality.

Pompeius has seen that the officer called a Ducenarius, as described by Vegetius, suggests that he commanded 200 men.

Milner has, in my opinion rightly, suggested that Vegetius made a mistake here, in all probability wrongly equating ‘ducenti’ into ‘ducentenarius’. A classic example of a ‘ducentenarios’ however is not known from the military, but from horse-racing, as a horse with two hundred victories (Diocles). As a result we cannot be sure if Vegetius, as he often did, made something up or mentioned the actual number of men under the command of a ducenarius. The word ‘ducentenarius’ as a commander of two hundred men is not known before Bede (8th c.).

[quote="Magister Militum Flavius Aetius" post=301408A Legion could not be divided into cohorts, because it could range between 800 and 1500 men based on the size of the mother unit and the number of Vexillations it was split into.[/quote} I see no reason to conclude that. As cohorts were not restricted to an exact number of men either, there’s no reason to suppose that legions could not be split into a number of cohorts.

[nikgaukroger]

Thanks - look forward to it

I got permission: Ok, here's what I can discerned based on the thread I've found:

I give Pompeius Magnus full credit for this information, it is all his work, and he spent countless hours reading and interpreting this information.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=353621

Thanks for posting this, alas IMO it doesn't really address the issue I was on about :-(

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Thanks - look forward to it

I got permission: Ok, here's what I can discerned based on the thread I've found:

I give Pompeius Magnus full credit for this information, it is all his work, and he spent countless hours reading and interpreting this information.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=353621

Thanks for posting this, alas IMO it doesn't really address the issue I was on about :-(

As to Logistics there's a thread in My forum about that I'll have to go back and look but I think it's my discussion and debate thread.

[antiochus]

antiochus wrote:
Thank you for your assessment of Vegetius. I have found Vegetius has made a simple mathematical mistake to arrive at the figure of 6100 due to his confusion regarding the various organisational levels of the legion.

Renatus wrote: I'd like your thoughts on that.

Vegetius mistake is all to do with the milliary cohort. The legion should be 6000 men accompanied by 666 cavalry. Vegetius has confused the camp organisation which implements the milliary cohort. This has its development in regard to the introduction of the veteran cohorts in the days of Augustus. The camp organisation has led Vegetius to mistakenly add an additional 66 cavalry to the milliary cohort and also his mistake with the infantry ends up with a legion of 6100 infantry. I’ve also concluded Vegetius 10 man maniple relates to the Servian army and the army of Romulus. The 10 man contubernia belongs to the 100 man century (100 divided by 10 = 10), which belongs to the 6000 man legion. The eight man contubernia belongs to the 4800 man legion as an 80 man century is divisible by eight (80 divided by 8 = 10), whereas a 100 man century is not divisible by eight (100 divided by 8 = 12.5). The important rule of thumb here is the Roman system is a macro micro system. In this manner a cohort has 60 contubernia, so a cohort of 480 men divided by 8 men per contubernia = 60 contubernia, and a 600 man cohort divided by 10 men per contubernia = 60 contubernia. Therefore, a 4800 man legion or a 6000 man legion amounts to 600 contubernia per legion.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Back Guys, sorry it was pizza and skyrim night.


At Robert:

Interesting points you have there. Will go back and review that.

I will admit outside of the Area between 421 and 465 my knowledge of the Empire isn't as good as it is there.

[Marcel Frederik Schwarze]

First of all I want thank for the inputs which were very thought-provoking - a very positive aspect in this forum. Furthermore I'm always grateful when I can improve my own researches which helps my readers and students as well.

The line of argument however is in my opinion unconvincing - and I may say that I can read some generalisations and stereotypes - esp. in the case of Vegetius.
And concerning several core-statements, also made in this thread I miss clear given sources. On base of "hearsay" it becomes difficult to start a serious argumentation.

@Robert
Sarcasm is probably inappropriate. Especially statements like "your pompeius failed to see that old units and new units existed next to another". This is simply not true since I gave many examples in my elaboration about old and new units - existing in the same time era. Also your Statement is wrong regarding cavalry -attached to the legion in the 3rd century. But later more about this.

Concerning the inner order and the structure about the Legion of the mid/late 3rd and 4th century we are nevertheless dependant on Vegetius.
Of course, and this is indeed sometimes a problem, Vegetius is mixing terms and names of older times and his own era. Without going into detail I can confirm this information.
Therefore a careful reading is necessary - if possible by taking the latin version.
Explicit he say in II 7 that he don't want speak about his own time when discribing the Legion. "Now" he want speak about the "old order".

It is unlikely in general that he personally was thinking about the old order of the Pseudo-Hyginus (~ 2nd to early 3rd century - or even more early). And this is also suggested because the commander of his "old" Legion is called Praefectus legionis (II 9) - a typically post-Hyginus office.
Before it was the legatus legionis or legatus Augusti pro praetore - and Vegetius is never writing about them - therefore he describes very likely the Legion of the 3rd and 4th century.
He was also defamed several times because he writes that some Legions had attached cavalry - some saw an evidence in this case that he speaks about a much more earlier Legion or is confusing again several time-spans.
In the first moment some people said that the statement of vegetius is faulty and not correct - but that what he says it is evidenced due to inscriptions I found during my own researches.
One inscription says that the new deployed Legion of Lanciarii (CIL VI 2759 2787 32943) included a schola equitum (CIL VI 32965 Valerio Maxentio aequiti ex numero lanciarorum. Vixit annos XXVI, militavit annos VI. Iscola aequitum bene merenti fecit).
Insofar it is probably not the right way to say that his descriptions are wrong in general or to mistrust most of his descriptions.

The strength of a cohors is indeed not restricted to a certain number.
Lydus (de mag I 46) gives a number of 300. Other Cohors are classified as milenaria (e.g. germanorum or Ulpia Petraeorum) - therefore probably 1000 strong. But this refers basically to independent Cohors - and not to legionary one.

That the old Legions - still operating with 3000-6000 men - still maintained the cohortal system is likely. I wouldn't go so far to say that it's impossible.
As correctly mentioned by Robert it is not diametrically opposed to anything we know that especially older Legions of the frontiers kept that system alive.

Vegetius describes in II 8 the order of the Centurions - the order is referred to the Legion of the 3rd and early 4th century. Therefore on position no. 5 a Centurion is named with the title triarius prior. In the first moment one could think that this order is indeed referring to a much older time. However, even Ammianus mentioned an hastatus and draconarius in XX 4 18 about the unit of Petulantes.
[...]Petulantium tunc hastatus, abstractum sibi torquem, quo ut draconarius utebatur,[...]
It seems possible that Diocletian or Contantine tried to reestablish or keep this old office.

But regarding new Legions and detachmants it is nearly excluded that this system survived - since Vegetius clearly said that the centurions are now called centenarii.
Liber II VIII
[...]Erant etiam centuriones, qui singulas centurias curabant; qui nunc centenarii nominantur.[...]

With the disappearance of the office - which is suggested because some tasks of the centurions were evidently shifted to the Tribuni - we have a good base to believe that this cohortal system was gone as well.
Veg II XII
[...]Reliquae cohortes, prout principi placuisset, a tribunis uel a praepositis regebantur.[...]
He used the imperfect tense. Therefore it is likely that the old system has indeed not survived.

Another small example - however noteworthy to speak about: The right of granting vacation went over from the centurions to the tribunes and praepositi.
Theodos. VII 1,2 (law probably from the year 349).
Imp. Constantius a. ad Silvanum comitem et magistrum equitum et peditum. Si quis miles per commeatum dimissus fuerit a tribuno vel praeposito aut inconsulto eodem ab obsequio militari signisque discesserit, per singulos milites tribuni et praepositi quina pondo auri fisco inferant. Dat. VI kal. iun. Sirmio Limenio et Catullino conss.

Before it was the task of the Centurions.
Tacitus Hist. I 46
[...]flagitatum ut vacationes praestari centurionibus solitae remitterentur; namque gregarius miles ut tributum annuum pendebat.[...]

Another issue, intersting to discuss, is a sentence of Vegetius about the standard "Signum".
After he has expressed the usage of eagles and dragons in the present tense concerning the grammar - he say (II 13 / 46 / 9 and on) [...] sed antiqui... singulis centuriis singula vexilla constituerent[...]
furthermore II 7 (41,6) [...] signiferi qui signa portant, quos nunc draconarios vocant[...] furthermore (III 5 (74,4) [...]aquilae dracones vexilla[...]
What does it mean when he say that the Signa was given from the antiqui to the centuriis?
The Signa were the standards of the Cohors and old Maniples. Does it suggest that the Maniple and/or Cohors disappeared and the standard of Vexilla and Signa was given to the Centuries?

To the Ducenarius
Veg II 8
[...]Item primus hastatus duas centurias, id est CC homines, ducebat in acie secunda, quem nunc ducenarium uocant.[...]
200 men - that is 2 centuries...

Those 200 men are not the old Maniple. Ammianus names manipulares in XVII 13 25 or XXI 13 9 or XXIII 5 15 XXVI 2 3 orXXVII 10 10 or XXIX 5 39 or XXXI 7 10.
Vegetius however indentifies them with the contubernia.
II XIII
[...]Contubernium autem manipulus uocabatur ab eo, quod coniunctis manibus pariter dimicabant.[...]
Perhaps this is also meant by Ammianus and is absolutely not contrary to that what Vegetius said - or any kind of mystery.
Furthermore later named in the graeco roman empire as lochos
Anonym-Köchly XV 9+13+16 - furthermore XXVII 2

We know that troops weren't following an unique system regarding the strength. Therefore it is possible that some troops were 100 strong - others perhaps 200. This is quite possible and is not diametrically opposed to another statement.
Irregular troop numbers were entirely desirable regarding the Strategikon (ibid I 4, II 19, III 2). Even if it's once more another time frame (+/-580/600AD) - it was probably the 4th and 5th century in which this evolution has begun.

A Ducenarius in the meaning of a military officer is named:

[1] in the scholae
Nov Theod. 21 and Codex Iust XII 29,1 (I 31,3)
De privilegiis scholarum
Viris spectabilibus comitibus scholarum verberandi regradandive senatores ac ducenarios licentiam denegamus. ea namque, quae tali commotione digna sunt, ad tuae sublimitatis volumus referri notitiam. theodos. et valentin. aa. phlegetio com. et mag. off
Comites have the right to degrade and punish Ducenarii and Senators (by the way - senatores are also mentioned in the regular infantry; CIL VIII17414 ; senator de numeru).

compare also with the Notitia degli scavi 1890 page 343
(concordia) ducenario ex numero armatorum

[2] in the regular cavalry
CIL III 14704
ducenar(ius) ex vixill(atione) equi(tum)

[3] in the infantry
CIL V 8759
Flavius Savinus ducenarius de numero Batavorum sen(iorum)
or
CIL V 1721
hic ducenae dignitate inter lectos meruerat viros

Several times mentioned by Lydus de mag. I 48 and III 2+7+15+16+21 named as (written in greek) doukenarioi.
I have checked all upper mentioned sources from Lydus once more and the office of the ducenarius is mostly mentioned together with the Centenarius, even with the old Centurion and somtimes with the Biarchus (e.g. III 7) as an active commander of the troops.
The official members of the Taxeos are listed in III 21 according their status and the Ducenarius is listed first, followed by the centenarii, then Biarchi and finally the adiutores (helpers or other minor officers).

Another sign for his higher rank and higher responsibility compared to the centenarius is given in the Codex Iust. I 27,2 (compare with Johannem Hierosolymilanum episcopum 19) - in which a Centenarius received 2 1/2 annonae and a Ducenarius 3 1/2 annonae. The list after the Ducenarius was just followed by the Senator - then Primicerius and finally by the tribunus.
That this term was confused by Vegetius with the ducentenarius known from horse-racings is pure speculation and it becomes not true if it's repeated like a mantra.
It is one interesting possibility and I include it for further debattes into my own forum as well, and I don't want deny that this is a possibility, however it is just a theory.
And balancing all given information and the fact that even the edictum anastasii page 138 §7 and page 151 mentiones troops of 200 I must say that the circumstance is likely that Vegetius is right once more - and not writing out of the blue.