Quote:I must try to get hold of a copy of Arrian, I only wish one were online, but I've not found it yet. ... I was most interested in his note that Arrian's reference to Ala and 512 men was as part of a digression and comment on earlier Greek organisations - so, not dismissed, but certainly queried.
Arrian wrote in Greek, which is probably why there isn't an internet version yet. That and the fact that there's only (to my knowledge) a German translation from 1964 and an American translation from the (?)1970s.
I quoted the entire line earlier in the thread, Mark. Arrian is describing the Hellenistic Greek method of organizing cavalry regiments. When he gets to the one that numbers 512, he says -- as an aside -- that this is the same as a Roman ala. That's all.
Quote:Hyginus ... that treatise is one of the most difficult and crazily complex systems I have ever seen. ... At best I would see it as a mathematical puzzle to set clever students. I simply don't believe that anyone would make something so complicated - when I genuinely do believe there is an alternate.
Like many technical treatises, it requires interpretation rather than simple translation. Gilliver's translation is no doubt helpful -- I don't use it, so I can't comment meaningfully -- but the text really needs a Commentary.
Quote:... and the subpraefectus alae (perhaps known under another name).
I downloaded a copy of Arrians Greek text with the English translation a year or so ago, I'll try and find the link and post it here later tonight after my good woman has finished watching catch-up TV via this laptop!!!
...The two taratinarchiae (are called) an hipparchia, of 512 horsemen, which the Romans are calling an "ile". The two hipparchiae (are called) an ephiparchia, of 1024 men...
In 18.2.1. Arrian also says what an "ile" is in Greek :
So, we have a normal Greek (by the book) squadron (ile) of 64 men and a Roman "ile" of 512 (or thereabouts). If the Romans were using the Greek system (powers of 2) in the organization of their units, I am personally pretty sure that Arrian would have mentioned it. Thus this Roman unit of 512 men must be one of some importance for him to mention and an ala sounds like an ile, so I would guess that this is what he means. Yet, I would not view his 512 men mention so strictly. I guess it could have been "about 512 men", maybe 500, maybe 480 or whatever number in the neighborhood and Arrian would still have pratically equated it with a Greek hipparchia. I personally see no point in a system that does not rely on the power of 2 to have units that have such an awkward (by the book) manpower as 512.
Macedon MODERATOR Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Quote:
I quoted the entire line earlier in the thread, Mark. Arrian is describing the Hellenistic Greek method of organizing cavalry regiments. When he gets to the one that numbers 512, he says -- as an aside -- that this is the same as a Roman ala. That's all.
Thank you indeed, that's most helpful. In that case.... :wink: ....
I had already previously noted the previous 'smaller' Greek unit (256 men) being identified as a 'Tarantine Regiment' and therefore wondering if that was the preferred 'operational' size. But what if I do believe that a Roman Alae M is bigger than 256 men, but not as large as 512 (which Arrian does imply by his link and then Hyginus, who has Arrian to hand, then fixes for us - based upon 512/32=16)? Arrian then just inserts a comment at 'nearly' the right place. I could perhaps make that stick!
Quote:
Mark Hygate post=308509 Wrote:... and the subpraefectus alae (perhaps known under another name).
The what now? :?
I'm not making it up - I promise!
Cheesman p36 - "Early inscriptions also mention a subpraefectus alae and a subpraefectus cohortis, but these posts seem later to have been abandoned."
On a related matter, I have read that, whilst Coh M were commanded by Tribunes, all Alae were commanded by Prefects, which I wouldn't have expected (although could happily understand if commanding cavalry were more of a speciality).
I am minded to recall here, on both matters, Suetonius Divus Augustus 38: ...careers...military tribunes...Augustus usually appointed two to the command of each cavalry squadron..." (my bolding, of course).
Hence my query on Tribunes to the larger Ala at least. Or is it just a naming thing?
Quote:Would the original Greek help you (press here)? Which part do you exactly want translated? The one about the 512 men being the size of a Roman ile?
Thank you. Sadly the link doesn't work for me, although I have found texts in searches on their sites I do have trouble going back to them - maybe it's an 'access privileges' thing?
And sadly, given an earlier posting of mine lamenting my choice 38 years ago to study German rather than Latin, Greek (particularly Attic) is definitely beyond me. :oops:
However, thanks to Duncan I comprehend more, but would still appreciate a deeper understanding of the context - given it's a definite counter to my theory. I too have read Asclepiodoutus, particularly as the detailed definitions of the military structures were available to the ancient historians and, moreover, influenced the earlier Etruscan to Roman Army development (eg the 16,384 perfect Phalanx is effectively identical to the standard Consular Army, let alone a French Napoleonic Army Corp!, infantry component).
The big factor indeed, for me, in understanding the Greek systems, is, for the cavalry in this case: whilst the Squadron (64) was the building block and the power of 2 builds for a name at every level until 8,192 is reached - what was the actual operational unit size (hence my honing in on the only 'odd' unit name, of the Tarantine Regiment (256))?
Now, for the Greeks, however, like the Republican Romans later with the turmae, I suspect there wasn't the answer I would like, simply because they had no standing armies and the sub-units were the only level of organisation. It's only when we get to the Augustan reforms that a true standing army of both cavalry and infantry was defined and suited to the new Imperial Empire's needs.
Quote:I had already previously noted the previous 'smaller' Greek unit (256 men) being identified as a 'Tarantine Regiment' and therefore wondering if that was the preferred 'operational' size. But what if I do believe that a Roman Alae M is bigger than 256 men, but not as large as 512 (which Arrian does imply by his link and then Hyginus, who has Arrian to hand, then fixes for us - based upon 512/32=16)? Arrian then just inserts a comment at 'nearly' the right place. I could perhaps make that stick!
There was no actual standardized "Greek" squadron size. Their squadrons varied in manpower as well as in shapes and even though they could be regionally standardized there was no compliance with the "perfect phalanx" described by Arrian, Aelian, Asclepiodotus etc. This was probably because very few individual Greek armies could practically satisfy the "perfect phalanx's" demands, some did possess the infantry but certainly not the cavalry, others had more light infantry and did not want to leave them out of the battle etc. They more usually divided units by tribal/origin of recruitment standards, like the Athenian phylae or the Spartan morae. The Boeotians would deploy according to city of origin etc. The perfect numbers may have been followed by certain hellenistic armies but that's about it. I am (among others) compiling a list of attested, on the field, actually used (mainly Greek and Byzantine)squadrons (all the way into Byzantine times) and till now I can say that numbers really varied according to tactical necessity even in the same army and only grossly followed some strict rule laid by the tactical teatises of any era. For example, in Arrian's Tactica alone we have square fighting squadrons mentioned 27, 50 and 200 men strong. In Aelian we have squadrons of 27, 32, 50 (square), 36, 61, 64, 85, 100 and 113 (rhomboid) and 64 (wedge) etc etc etc... So, perfect numbers for units and actual use of them on the battlefield is something that does not always coincide...
Macedon MODERATOR Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Thank you, but sadly that's the 'Order of Battle against the Alans', which I too found, but not his 'Ars Tactica'; which I believe is the one I want.
If you go to this post: http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat.html?fu...763#302582
and follow the 'Price List' link, you will find J. G. De Voto's translations of the Taktika and the Ektaxis in one volume at the head of the list. The price is reasonable, too. Personally, I dislike De Voto's translations (his Hyginus I find particularly ghastly) but they are helpful, if used with care. The post also includes a link to an order form.
Michael King Macdona
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Thank you very much gents, that's most helpful. I may just try and get hold of that translation, however 'iffy', as indeed it is a sensible price.
I shall also be very interested in that Greek & Byzantine information. Whilst I too accept that the 'powers of 2 up to 8,192' organisations are all theoretical; I have always been conscious that there really wasn't that much cavalry around on the battlefield for the Greeks and Romans - there does seem to be a dearth of horses in the Western Med'. It wasn't until the Romans met the Numidians, later some of the Gauls and Germans to some extent, and finally the Parthians as the fore-runners of the later steppe peoples/hordes that truly significant numbers appear.
It's that, along with a belief that 16 or even 24 turma units are too large to control, that makes me really question the Romans' Ala sizes...
Since the Roman cavalry is my favorite topic, I'll chose this thread to write my first post.
To begin with, just a precision that may disprove Marks' theory concerning the organisation of the republican turma (deployment on 3 ranks and 10 files). In Livy's History (XL, 40, 4-5), Q. Fulvius Flaccus orders his legionary cavalry to double the files before attacking the ennemy ("duplicate turmas"). My question is simple : how would they realize such a manoeuvre with a 3 ranks' turma ?
I'm honoured by your remark but, unfortunately, I'm not Michael Pavkovic. I admit that the connection was tantalizing, since my Livy's quotation comes from his PhD Thesis on the equites legionis/promoti ! To prevent further hazardous identifications, I also precise that I've nothing to do with another notorious Michael P... Speidel this one.
And there's me thinking you meant Michael Palin :mrgreen:
Moi Watson
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Merlot in one hand, Cigar in the other; body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, what a ride!
