Cohorts sizes

[Crispvs]

What is the source of the idea of the first cohort being of five double strength centuries?
We always seem to repeat this uncritically but it occurs to me that I have never seen where the information comes from, except perhaps from the interpretation of the remains of a number of forts. Can anyone enlighten me?

I have also wondered about the figure of 480 men in a quingenary (supposedly 500 strong unit). The Romans were quite capable of names which accounted for fractions (eg: sesisquiplicarius - a man of one and a half times pay) and I am sure they could have come up with a more accurately descriptive name for a 480 strong unit than 'quingenary' if it really did have only 480 men at full strength. It has often occurred to me though that the figure of 480 is simply the multiplication of the eighty men in a normal century. However, is it not normally believed that the centurio and possibly some or all of the sub-officers (optio, signifer, tessararius and cornicern/tubicern) were supernumerary to the basic number of eighty? This would give figures of between 486 and 510 men. If only the centurio and the two duplicarii were supernumerary this would produce a figure of 498 men - still not five hundred but much closer. Of course, if such figures as beneficiarii were also supernumerary, then could five hundred have been a real paper strength rather that the rather inaccurate approximation for a figure of 480 which we normally assume it is?

Crispvs

[Nathan Ross]

It has often occurred to me though that the figure of 480 is simply the multiplication of the eighty men in a normal century... could five hundred have been a real paper strength rather that the rather inaccurate approximation for a figure of 480 which we normally assume it is?

Very likely, I'd say. As I discovered on the very long thread about zodiacs and army numbers, there's not very much evidence at all for unit sizes anyway, so most of what we go on today is a rough approximation. I think the 80-man century is based on the 8-man contubernium, which in turn is based on a single bit of evidence; beyond that it's a matter of counting up rooms in barrack blocks. 'Quingenary' gives a figure to aim for, but paper strength and real strength were, of course, very different things. In the barrack, the centurion, and perhaps the duplicarii, would have had separate quarters anyway - and what about the two legion cavalrymen per century? 480 men excluding officers and supernumaries might be a reasonable theoretical estimate, but no more than that...

[Renatus]

I think the 80-man century is based on the 8-man contubernium,

It's Hyginus, de metatione castrorum, 1: plena centuria habet milites LXXX, 'a full century has 80 soldiers.'

[D B Campbell]

What is the source of the idea of the first cohort being of five double strength centuries?

Veg., Mil. II.6.1: prima cohors reliquas et numero militum et dignitate praecedit ("The first cohort exceeds the others in the number of its soldiers and in its status.") II.6.3: Habet pedites mille centum quinque, equites loricatos centum triginta duos, et appellatur cohors miliaria ("It has 1,105 infantry, 132 armoured cavalry, and is called a milliary cohort.")
Hyg., De munit. castr. 3: cohors prima ... quoniam duplum numerum habet duplam pedaturam accipiet ("The first cohort ..., since it has double the numbers, occupies double the space ...")

The inscriptional evidence shows that, in most cases, the First Cohort had only five centurions, and their five houses have been located (e.g.) at Nijmegen.

Put it all together, and you get five double centuries. The whole question is addressed in the Osprey Roman Fortresses book, pp. 54ff. :wink:

[D B Campbell]

I have also wondered about the figure of 480 men in a quingenary (supposedly 500 strong unit).

It's Hyginus (or Ps.-Hyginus, for the politically correct). Remember, he defines a century as 80 men right at the start. So, we have this figure in mind when he eventually gets to the auxiliary units:

Hyg., De munit. castr. 28: cohors peditata miliaria habet centurias X, tendit papilionibus C, ex eis centuriones singulis. Item peditata quingenaria habet centurias VI, reliqua ut supra ("The milliary infantry cohort has ten centuries, and it pitches 100 tents, out of which the centurions have one each. Likewise, the quingenary infantry [cohort] has six centuries, and the rest as above.")

The whole question is addressed in the Osprey Roman Forts book, pp. 24ff.

[Mark Hygate]

Gentlemen,

It's been part of a pet theory of mine and that I hope to compose a short paper on and submit to this august forum that I joined the forum in the first place to expose - and seek valued criticism - but here goes a 'junior members' comment....

Origin of Quingenary - from a Logical & Deductive look at Roman Army Organisation:

The main sources, to which I'd add Polybius, have already been mentioned above. I would like to offer, firstly, a single statement that the standard infantry 'Century' was 80 men strong, representing the fighting complement, but not including 'Officers'. This seems now to have general acceptance and there is a deal of evidence to support it.

Now, if I'm looking to try and get to the magic 500 figure then it is certainly possible using a very reasonable potential organisation. If each Century is 80, then we only have to add a Centurion and an Optio to get to 492, for a 6 Century cohort. You could then add a further 6 for the Century's standard-bearer, although he could be a member of the first contubernia and certainly take the 'right-marker' position; if so, then a further 'NCO'/Runner/Tessarius would not be unreasonable. This gets us to 498. All we are missing then is the Cohort's standard bearer and the Cornicen (for averting the rest of the Cohort to any signals). It's certainly not unreasonable to therefore consider the deployed full strength cohort to be 500 strong. However, that is really a digression...

I would like to suggest that the origin of Quingenary is further back with the Polybian proto-cohort. In the 4,200 standard legion of Polybius this would consist of a unit the equivalent of 5 Centuries strong, whether or not the Triarii element was organised as a single century or as a maniple the equivalent of 2 half-centuries. Whilst operational use of the Cohort didn't classically appear until later and is often attested to the long running Hispanic conflict (shades of the Napoleonic French experience subsequently); the forces attested by Polybius as being used to form the Extraordinarii are the equivalent of 2 proto-cohorts from each Allied Legion - otherwise perhaps known as a 'double-strength cohort' of 10 centuries in size. Perhaps even known as a 'milliary cohort' (cohort being originally a generic, rather than specific term).

Us military types are known to be rather hidebound and I would like to therefore suggest that the origin of Quingenary may be further back than the early Imperial period when it was more commonly used to detail the size of units and that even when milliary cohorts were formed they harked back to an earlier age. The origins of our much later confusion given that 6 x 2 <> 10 may be earlier military usage.

I will also go further here and postulate that perhaps Hyginus and Vegetius were similarly confused - but that maybe for another day......

[Mark Hygate]

I did wonder if I'd be commented on as to the fact that this subject may have been done to death before, or indeed was not worthy of comment - but no matter...

What I would like to ask, having made the sensible decision way back in school to take German rather than Latin (much more use for Cold War postings, but not for my Roman interests) - is can my learned Latin forum members give me any definitive understanding of what 'Quingenary' actually means?

Is there more than one interpretation? What are the roots of the word?

[D B Campbell]

What are the roots of the word?

Lewis & Short, A Latin Dictionary (... which Renatus reminded me to check on another thread!)

[Mark Hygate]

Thank you Duncan,

That dictionary, however, is also an interpretation; particularly when associated with the Cohort(es).

Could it also not mean 'five hundreds' or 'five hundredths' ? ie 5 x Centuriae? Where we know the century is actually 80, but is formed from a 'centuriae' system, just like dividing the people/tribes for elections and representation and the same as dividing land?

[D B Campbell]

Could it also not mean 'five hundreds' or 'five hundredths' ? ie 5 x Centuriae?

Not if you believe Hyginus (above).

[Mark Hygate]

Not if you believe Hyginus (above).

Well, properly disagreeing with 'Hyginus' (having read 'him' for myself recently) is something I may well do in the end, but that wasn't what I was after.

I do not disagree at all that the later Republican and Imperial 6 century cohort was referred to as 'Quingenary' or 'Quingenaria'. What, however, I am suggesting is that the root cohort that was first named this way is the 'original' cohort that was at first 5 x centuria strong, but was 6 x centuria strong in exceptional circumstances (re Polybius). And this is why the 'double-strength' first cohort and larger auxilliary cohorts were named 'milliary' or 'milliarae' because they were 10 x centuria strong.

I have come to believe strongly that the terms 500 and 1000 strong are misnomers from interpretation and interpolation and that Quingenary was originally for the smaller 5 century cohort, that became 6, whilst Milliary referred to 10 centuries and was more accurate when it was introduced formerly.

I would like to start a separate thread about Hyginus and his cavalry units, however.

What I would like to ask the community here, though, is where is the primary evidence for identifying units as Quingenary or Milliary is?

I have done a lot of reading and basic research recently, but much of that is itself either summaries or secondary or tertiary results.

Polybius and Josephus are the best primary sources for army organisation and there are glimpses elsewhere. I will own up and say that I do have concerns over Hyginus and Vegetius when it comes to the detail, however.

I did look at the Notia Dignitatum over 30 years ago, but am aware of it's dating too. Is most of the rest from inscriptions and documentary? And, if so, how are the names and 'sizes' presented?

[D B Campbell]

Well, properly disagreeing with 'Hyginus' (having read 'him' for myself recently) is something I may well do in the end ...

How very dare you! :wink:

... but was 6 x centuria strong in exceptional circumstances (re Polybius).

Polybius?

I have come to believe strongly that the terms 500 and 1000 strong are misnomers ...

I think we're mostly agreed on that!

... where is the primary evidence for identifying units as Quingenary or Milliary is?

Besides Hyginus' explicit use of the terms, they occasionally suffix their own names with D (quingenaria) or M (milliaria) on inscriptions, or are officially designated as such on the diplomas.

[Mark Hygate]

Well, properly disagreeing with 'Hyginus' (having read 'him' for myself recently) is something I may well do in the end ...

How very dare you! :wink:

Watch this space.....:wink:

... but was 6 x centuria strong in exceptional circumstances (re Polybius).

Polybius?

Yes, the Polybian Legion of 4000 + 'Officers' is equal to, if not divided exactly, 50 x 80 man centuries. On more than one occasion, Polybius refers to the raising of the strength to 5000 (ie adding 800), which implies the adding of the equivalent of 10 more 80-man centuries. This was perhaps also done commonly with the Allies (cf Polybius' comment on the size of a 'standard' consular army). This leads us directly on towards the later Republican legion of 4800 men + 'Officers', which we are more generally content was divided into 10 x 6 x century cohorts.

I have come to believe strongly that the terms 500 and 1000 strong are misnomers ...

I think we're mostly agreed on that!

... where is the primary evidence for identifying units as Quingenary or Milliary is?

Besides Hyginus' explicit use of the terms, they occasionally suffix their own names with D (quingenaria) or M (milliaria) on inscriptions, or are officially designated as such on the diplomas.

Thank you, I assumed that was the case, but in general people 'quote' the information and I haven't been able to see any/many myself. Perhaps one day I'll have the time and resources to do so.

[D B Campbell]

Polybius?

Yes, ... Polybius refers to the raising of the strength to 5000 (ie adding 800), which implies the adding of the equivalent of 10 more 80-man centuries.

I wouldn't like to second-guess Polybius, but he was probably thinking of 5 maniples (= 1 [sup]2[/sup]/[sub]3[/sub] cohorts). Polybius is not really much of a cohort fan.

[Mark Hygate]

I wouldn't like to second-guess Polybius, but he was probably thinking of 5 maniples (= 1 [sup]2[/sup]/[sub]3[/sub] cohorts). Polybius is not really much of a cohort fan.

Actually Polybius seems to be more specific. He says that the 'extra men' were divided "in proporation" amongst the maniples/centuries of Hastati & Principes, and particularly states that the Triarii were always 600 in explanation. However, this part is a little vague and I am not convinced he knows. :wink:

What is explicit is that these men were added in times of extremis. 'We' also know that later on the developed Triarii/Pilus maniple definitely became 160 strong and was identified with prior and posterior centuries, just like the others. I also would support that, in extremis, it would be additional older men (previously served perhaps ex-Triarii) and more youngsters/less well able (Velites) who would be available; let alone that, if things are somewhat tricky, then beefing up your reserve, rather than mucking about with your integrated and well organised front lines would be the most sensible thing to do.

Therefore, notwithstanding that explicit note that the Triarii were always 600, I would contend that the extra 800 were indeed used to add an extra century-worth of men to each Triarii maniple/century equivalent. Adding extra maniples to the beauteous harmony of the consular army layout would not be the most sensible thing to do.

PS The thrust of the little paper I plan to write is fundamentally based on the military mind and the lovely simplicity of the Roman model (as I see it). The KISS principle taken to heart.