\'Hyginus\' Cavalry Units

[Mark Hygate]

Hello everybody,

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 ?

Michael - and a welcome from me too (also a newcomer... )

Given that I'm relying on Polybius as my real start point (I have downloaded Livy, but have not read through it all yet), I will defend the: 3 ranks of 10 each commanded by a Decurion, with the senior commanding the turmae; pretty hard. :wink:

In that case, I will happily postulate two suggestions of what Q. Fulvius Flaccus may have ordered:

Firstly, that I believe the turmae, like the main infantry 3 lines system, operated by having the 1st & 2nd line as the offensive element, with the 3rd line as a reserve - probably with the senior decurio in direct control, unless he felt his presence up front was particularly necessary or inspiring. [I'm fairly confident that other sources (re the training of the Roman cavalry) suggest something similar.] So, what could have been intended was that the two front lines went in together.

Secondly, however, and more likely in my opinion, was that the turma deployed alongside the second main infantry line (the one with the Principes), was moved up to directly support the corresponding one in the front line, so that a pair of turma acted together and 'doubled' their files. Given that the Romans used their centuries in pairs/maniples, it is reasonable to believe that they used their turma in a similar way; and especially when one considers the Greek 64-man Squadron from which the Roman cavalry probably evolved. That would mean the battle started with the pairs of turma aligned with the front line and now 6 ranks deep.

All conjectural, but not unbelievable... 8)

[Macedon]

Cavalry, as well as infantry, was not formed in an absolutely rigid manner. Having three decurions per turma does not necessarily mean that there would be files of 10, as having two centurions per maniple would not mean that maniples deployed in 2 files. For a Roman general to be able to array his turmae in 3 files was certainly a possibility, especially if he wished them to be more mobile (a smaller front made it easier to turn) or if for some reason he anticipated melee action (which Polybius especially reports as quite non-standard) and wanted positional weight (Xenophon praises the merits of cavalry depth in such circumstances). Without myself wanting to advocate any depth as standard, the number of the officers does not strike me as proof enough to accept such a proposition as more probable than others. What I most would like to know is the timeframe of what you are prosposing. Are you suggesting that the Roman cavalry would customarily array 10 deep from the time of the Hannibalic Wars to at least Arrian's generalship?

[Macedon]

Hello everybody,

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 ?

If the order "duplicate" is similar to the Greek "diplasiazein", then there are a lot of things that might be meant. We have "doubling by depth" and "doubling by length". And then, we have "doubling of men" and "doubling of space". The only order that would be impossible to perform in a 3 rank turma would be "doubling of space by length". Since the specific text speaks of how the Romans reacted to the attack of the Celtiberian cavalry wedge I find it possible that a "doubling of men by depth" is most possible to have happened, which would be simple enough requiring from the turmae to redeploy in 5 files 6 deep. It could even mean that a general doubling of men should be effected by merging two turmae into one. Unfortunately, without more details, I think it will be impossible to say what Livy exactly describes here.

[D B Campbell]

Unfortunately, without more details, I think it will be impossible to say what Livy exactly describes here.

It's usually interesting to check the latest commentary on a particular text, but Google Books won't let me see the relevant page of Briscoe's Commentary on Livy 38-40. :mad:

Weissenborn's 1875 commentary acknowledges that the phrase is obscure, but suggests that Flaccus was doing something similar to Sulla in Sallust's Jugurthine War, ch. 101, where he attacked the Moors "with tightly-packed horses in each turma". For the Livy passage, Weissenborn suggests that "in order to strengthen the Choc (impact?), two turmae should attack together in close order".

[Mark Hygate]

Gentlemen,

I'll open up this topic again having just acquired a copy of Arrian's Tactica and Order of Battle against the Alans from America as some of you suggested - thanks again.

I need to do a close reading, although it's not that long, but I have done a rapid read through.

For anyone else who has done so, however, can I ask whether my first thought is right - that the Tactica is nothing more than a paraphrase of Asclepidotus; and a very bad one at that? hock:

If so, then as anything to do with Roman Army organisation it seems extremely poor evidence and that single reference to 'which the Roman's call ala' could easily be understood as the 'actual' meaning that of being the 'wings'. For you would need 2 x Tarantine units as a minimum to form a pair of cavalry wings; which is part of the context.

I was also of the impression that Arrian was an actual General writing about what he had seen, but that seems not to be the case. :???:

[D B Campbell]

Gentlemen,

There goes 50 per cent of your audience! hock:

can I ask whether my first thought is right - that the Tactica is nothing more than a paraphrase of Asclepidotus; and a very bad one at that?

The relationship between Arrian and Asclepiodotus (and Aelian, for that matter) is extremely complex. The acknowledged master, Alphonse Dain, concluded that all three ultimately (and independently) went back to a lost work by Poseidonius.

as anything to do with Roman Army organisation it seems extremely poor evidence ...

The benefit of Arrian's version is usually assumed to be the fact that he was a "military man", meaning a Roman consular who -- on account of the Roman "system" -- had had periodic, intimate connection with armies, latterly as governor of Cappadocia, with its largish legionary/auxiliary garrison. (See, e.g., here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/311194; also, Philip Stadter wrote a whole book about him in 1980: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3063065.)

[MD]

There is also a slightly older paper by Philip Stadter available, dealing with this very question: "The Ars Tactica of Arrian: Tradition and Originality", http://www.jstor.org/stable/268990

[MD]

The idea of a larger ca. 40 - 42 strong turma is older than the excavations in Heidenheim, which seemingly provided proof.

I cannot lay my hands on the relevant report, but the plan of Heidenheim that I have (in Die Römer in Baden-Württemberg) makes it seem unlikely that it provided proof of a large-sized turma. I hope that someone will prove me wrong!

I recently got the new book, "Das Römerkastell Aalen" by Martin Kemkes and Markus Scholz, the latter lead the excavations at Heidenheim and Aalen between 2000 and 2006. As the title suggests it is a description of the fort of Ala II Flavia milliaria based on the latest finds from Heidenheim and Aalen, also including a chapter about the barrack blocks.

The results of this excavations were also properly published a few years ago: "Das Reiterkastell Aquileia/Heidenheim. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 2000-2004." Forsch. u. Ber. Vor- u. Frühgesch. Baden-Württemberg 110 (Stuttgart 2009).

Now in Heidenheim the remnants of three double and one single turma barrack in the praetentura's western part (with traces of one more of the latter type) and traces of two double barracks in the eastern side of retentura were examined.Each turma block is reconstructed with a large "head" suite for the decurion, a smaller set of rooms for the duplicarius, sesquiplicarius and their horses at the end and 13 contubernia/stable combinations between both. They suggest 3 men per contubernia and 42 per turma.

For the whole fort they assume a symmetrical layout with 6 double and 4 single turma barracks in the praetentura and 4 double barracks in the retentura.

[Mark Hygate]

I recently got the new book, "Das Römerkastell Aalen" by Martin Kemkes ........... They suggest 3 men per contubernia and 42 per turma.

For the whole fort they assume a symmetrical layout with 6 double and 4 single turma barracks in the praetentura and 4 double barracks in the retentura.

Michael,

Thanks for the update. A couple of questions, if I may...

1 - The fort is identified with Ala(M) II Flavia, obviously, but is there any evidence of other units there?

2 - Do you get a sense that, having made an assumption that the unit is ~1,000 strong, they are looking to make the second assumption that all the barrack blocks have 13 contubernia and that there are going to be 24 blocks in total, in order to work backwards to the result? Have traces of horse urine been found in all the barrack blocks?

[MD]

1 In Heidenheim, where the barrack blocks were excavated, no. There are some clues that the Ala left Aalen sometime during the 3rd century crisis and that there was possibly another garrison in the fort during its final years.

2 There is not a single word of doubt that the paper strength of an in an ala m could be anything but 1000 men. So I would certainly consider that a possibility. Since half the praetentura and retentura could not be excavated it is also possible that there were some other buildings than more barrack blocks in these parts of the fort.

According to the text and their plan of the excavated areas, they found what they interpreted as urine pits in all front rooms, 15 stables per turma block, 2 are in the larger end contubernia that are interpreted as quarters of the duplicarius and sesquiplicarius. In this book it is not mentioned if they actually analyzed them for traces of horse urine.

[MD]

I've just stumbled upon another piece of evidence for 16 turmae in an Ala quingenaria that might still be of interest here. In R. S. O. Tomlin: "Roman Manuscripts from Carlisle: The Ink-Written Tablets", Britannia, Vol. 29 (1998), 31-84. He describes one group of documents, supposedly from Ala Gallorum Sebosiana, containing a list with 16 turma and the amount of wheat and barley issued to them.
Tomlin tries to deduce the actual number of men and horses per turma from their rations. For this he also shortly discusses and lists the evidence for the strength of a turma.

[Mark Hygate]

I've just stumbled upon another piece of evidence for 16 turmae in an Ala quingenaria that might still be of interest here. In R. S. O. Tomlin: "Roman Manuscripts from Carlisle: The Ink-Written Tablets", Britannia, Vol. 29 (1998), 31-84. He describes one group of documents, supposedly from Ala Gallorum Sebosiana, containing a list with 16 turma and the amount of wheat and barley issued to them.
Tomlin tries to deduce the actual number of men and horses per turma from their rations. For this he also shortly discusses and lists the evidence for the strength of a turma.

Thank you kindly. Whilst I'd much rather that the evidence was for much smaller ala (if I can ever get the little theses finished) - is there any easy way to get access to that reference? If not, then I'll have to see if I can get it.

Thanks again.

[Renatus]

is there any easy way to get access to that reference?

If you don't mind spending some money, you can go to JSTOR and download it for $12.