Did the Fimbriani have legion numbers?

[eigenvector]

More generally, are any legion numbers known for the Republican period? I presume they started from Augustus but would love to hear from the really knowledgeable people.

Thanks!

[M. Demetrius]

Maybe I don't meet the "really knowledgeable" criterion, but Julius Caesar numbered his legions, as did Pompey, so that's two Republicans who had legion numbers. Caesar's legions retained their numbers as the political system changed through the Principate to the Empire.

[Nathan Ross]

Pre-Caesarian legions are not really my forte, but I'll have a crack at answering! Hopefully others can correct my mistakes.

Traditionally, the Roman republic raised four legions a year - the 'consular series', numbered I-IIII, with the two consuls commanding two legions each. These legions were supposedly disbanded at the end of the year, or at the end of a campaign, but campaigns could often last much longer than a year, and so many duplicate 'consular' legions could have existed at the same time. Proconsuls (provincial governors) were also able to raise legions from citizens in their provinces, numbered higher than the consular four, and these would apparently stay in the field much longer - this is how Caesar managed to amass so many during the Gallic wars (this handy chart on Livius.org gives the details).

The Fimbriani were probably the remains of the two consular legions taken east by Flaccus in c86, so would presumably have been numbered either I and II or III and IIII. Flaccus may have raised more troops in the east, and these men might also have gone over to Fimbria during his revolt.

[popularis]

Nathan is, as usual, bang on the money. My only tweaks would be that the senate could order that more than four legions were to be raised in Italy, and that I'm not sure that legions raised in the provinces would be kept in service together for longer than units of Italian origin.

In answer to Felix's question: so far as I know all legions had a number, which they would keep until disbanding. This was almost always at the end of the campaign for which they were raised.

However, it's rare for legion numbers to be recorded for this period:

1. These legions belong to the period before the spread of the 'epigraphic habit' (e.g. having an engraved funeral tombstone or plaque) making us dependent on the writings of the elite.
   
   
2. Many ancient authors either: a) didn't choose to identify which legion they were talking about; or b) that information didn't survive for the author to discuss.
   
   
3. This was before the existence of permanent legions, so legions were unlikely to develop an identity in the popular imagination 'back home'.
   
   
4. This was before there was a distinct Roman 'military' to be appealed to or flattered by mentioning specific units for praise (or occasionally for condemnation).
   

As a result, it's rare for units to be explicitly identified - and extremely rare for units of auxiliaries to get a mention of any kind unless they were cavalry.

As a side note, I suspect that the Fimbriani are only unusual in that they're pre-Caesarian/Pompeian legions with a separate nickname that has come down to us. I wouldn't be surprised if other legions, especially those who had been a long time together on campaign, developed their own identities and their own nicknames, especially other 'outcast' forces (Sertorius' units, for example), where one individual was in command for a long time (e.g. Marius' legions), or where a consular levy reinforced a previous consular levy (necessary to avoid confusion). Such informal legion nicknames would have been very unlikely to survive.

What interests me is not that legion nicknames began to spread once the 'permanent' legion came into being, but how these became official and widely known outside of the army, but that's another question

blue skies