Last Legion Standing

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

One reference (not sure which) refers to these men being called 'Quintani', after their unit numeral....

Yes, I've read a source with that and, like you Robert, I've lost track of it. If anyone has a lead on it that'd be great. I recently had a "computer tragedy" where I lost a lot of my saved resources so I'm re-building all my Late Legion stuff from scratch. The "Quintani" reference was a key one for me.

...do we have any inscriptions referring to any such communities manning sections of walls anywhere? It would be really interesting to know that. ...

That's one for the epigraphy specialists among us (of whom I'd like to be one in a few years). It's an important set of data to draw together too, if anyone's thinking that way. With the responsibility for maintaining the frontier seeming to fall increasingly on local communities, it's necessary to establish links between edicts, commercial documents, inscriptions and - maybe - local coinage issues. If "privatisation" became the (?? post-Justinian) system of Roman frontier defence, then it's an important if challenging field.

Or the one in the Caucasus?...

(Heeeeeelllllpppppp!!!!!)

The word 'legion' seems to have become generic...

And there's the rub. The search isn't necessarily for a whole legion but for a presence, a footptint. For my quest, I'll be happy if there's sound evidence "X was at place "Y" at time Z", whether "X" is a detachment or whole legion (what's left of it). That could at least prove the continuing existence of "The Legion".

Which brings me to this question:
If one takes the Severan era as something of a turning-point in the prestige of "The Legion", why did units designated as "Legions" persist? What was the motivation for forming new "Legions" or maintaining existing "Legions" when it might seem to us they had much debased worth? What is it about the organization of manpower that is being signified by the word "Legion" (or its later Greek equivalent)? What made a "Legion" - the unit-type - useful enough to be hung onto when other forms of infantry-unit organisation abounded and cavalry seemed more valued tactically anyhow?

????
Cheers

Howard/SPC

[Renatus]

One reference (not sure which) refers to these men being called 'Quintani', after their unit numeral....

Yes, I've read a source with that and, like you Robert, I've lost track of it. If anyone has a lead on it that'd be great. I recently had a "computer tragedy" where I lost a lot of my saved resources so I'm re-building all my Late Legion stuff from scratch. The "Quintani" reference was a key one for me.

Ross Cowan, in the article referred to in Amelianus’ first post (‘The longest lived legion: Quinta Macedonica – Legio Antiqua’, Ancient Warfare II.3, 36-39), mentions a letter written by an augustalis of the Quintani (described as numerus rather than legio) but does not give a reference. The papyrus in question seems to be p.ross.georg. 3.10, which can be found here:

http://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.ross.georg;3;10

ἀγουσσταλίου νουμέρ[ου] κυντανῶν appears in ll.2-3 and ἀγουσταλίου νουμέρου κυντανῶν on the verso.

Cowan also refers to one Gaiolus, tribunus Quintanorum, again without a reference. The text is c.ep.lat. 234 and can be found here:

http://papyri.info/ddbdp/c.ep.lat;;234

Fl[av]ius Gaiolus trib(unus) quintanor(um) is in the first line.

I found these references on a Russian site, which also contains other useful references. The Google translation is here:

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?...d%3Dimvnsb

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Michael, my thanks!

The reference I'd had was only in an article I think so I'm delighted with yours in lieu.

I gather one can't view the images of these papyri online. (Or....?)

The Russian page is very absorbing although I note one contributor there too insists that the Baalbek reference has to be to the V Macedonica. Otherwise I was most impressed with their approach.

Well, here's to primary sources and papyri!

Again, my thanks Michael.

Howard/SPC

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Michael...The reference I'd had was only in an article I think...

Oh dear! I need to correct and clarify. "Only an article"? I was in fact referring to:

Tomlin, R.S.O. 2000 The Legions in the Late Empire. In R.J. Brewer (ed.) Roman Fortresses and their Legions, pp. 159-181. Cardiff and London: National Museums and Galleries of Wales and The Society of Antiquaries of London. ISBN 0 85431 274 9 and ISSN 0953-7155.

And I think this is more than "just an article". I think it's a most informative piece of writing. The "Quintani quote" was:

"Other mobile legions adapted their cognomen. ... This practice is found in late Roman Egypt, where legio V Macedonica, not only retained its formal title but also masqueraded as the Quintani and even as 'the Macedonians'... (Tomlin 2000:160)"

I was, at first, thrown by a seeming contradiction apparently-unnoticed by Tomlin. However, on re-reading, I don't think it's a contradiction at all. The author states: "... the longest-lived of all the legions (was) legio V Macedonica ...(Tomlin 2000:160)" but later adds "The prize of longevity has been claimed for the Scythae (cf Not Dig Or 6.44), who were at Gaza in c 640, but their connection with the Notitia legion is doubtful (Hoffmann 1970,85, n 117).(Tomlin 2000:175n8)" (My use of bold type).

The author evidently doubts the Scythae claim but not that for the legio V Macedonica. I have yet to back-check, but I'm wondering if it was originally Jones (1964) who used the Baalbek inscription as his evidence. If so, it would hardly be surprising that no later researcher questioned this. If it does turn out to have been Jones, it may be he cites other evidence as well. Or, Jones' judgement may not have been made on the Baalbek inscription at all. Or...or...or...

I'll just have to be patient.

Cheers

Howard/SPC

[Robert Vermaat]

If you're strict, no legion would really deserve the title, for essentially the last units with these names only represent vexillations or parts from the original Augustan legions. For some legions there must have been many such units, even at the same time! And though fascinatinf, I think we should not think too much of it - it will be really hard if not impossible to prove beyond any doubt a direct lineage between these 7th-c. units and the original legion. In your words, Spurius, the continuing existence of 'The Legion' may never be proven (even though I'm satisfied with a few scraps!). :wink:

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

If you're strict, no legion would really deserve the title, ...

Hi Robert

That's actually the thought that's nagging at me and I really need to think about.

My interest in "The Legion" partly relates to how the word itself has shaped our view of Rome. Often one sees references to how Rome's legions did "this" or went "there". To the lay person, it's as if every Roman military unit was "a legion".

So, what about "the scraps" of legions? Those late legions that were vexillations of others carry the "DNA" of their parent legion, if I may speak figuratively. So, when they achieve autonomy, what about them would allow them to be called "legions" also? And the "New Legions" - what do they "carry" that they are called legions?

Somewhere along the line, characteristic expectations of - maybe - organization or performance may have inevitably made some bodies of troops definable as "legions" and others not. Unhappily for me, no ancient writer was considerate enough to spell out what I need to know.

But "never proven"? Hmmmm....Give me a few years and I'll let you know.

Cheers
mile:
Howard/SPC