I have been putting the finishing touches to the history of the early praetorians and I am a little excited about how it is falling into place. In 42 BC, Appian (BC 4 115) reports that a praetorian cohort numbered “about 2000 men.” Plutarch (Antony 53 2) states 2000 picked soldiers were equipped as praetorian cohorts. After their victory at Philippi in 42 BC, Appian (BC 5 3) writes that Octavian and Antony divided between them 8000 veteran soldiers and formed them into praetorian cohorts.
The figure of 8000 men is divisible by the figure of 2000 man praetorian cohorts as stated by Appian and Plutarch. This would allocate Antony and Octavian each 4000 praetorian cohorts. Taking this information that would mean at the battle of Forum Gallorum, Antony’s two praetorian cohorts number 4000 men as did Octavian’s two praetorian cohorts. (Cicero Letters to Friends 378 (10 30) Galba to Cicero) Antony’s three praetorian cohorts for the Parthia campaign of 32 BC, would amount to 6000 praetorians (Plutarch (Antony 39 2). And of most interest, Octavian’s five praetorian cohorts at Actium in 31 BC would number 10,000 praetorians (Orosius 6 19 8). The 10,000 praetorians at Actium is the same number of praetorians serving under Augustus as stated by Dio.
In an attempt to determine if 2000 man praetorian cohorts, after back organising the praetorians of the imperial period, I did a reconstruction of Galba’s account of the battle of Forum Gallorum. Antony with two legions, the 2nd and the 35th plus two cohorts of praetorians faced the Martian legion and two cohorts of praetorians. During the battle Galba has eight of his cohorts push back Antony’s 35th legion, but then Galba claims the left wing consisted of two cohorts plus one cohort of praetorians. So Galba’s battle order is now missing one cohort of praetorian. After reconstructing Galba’s deployment, the Martian legion faces Antony’s 35th legion, one praetorian cohort will face Antony’s 2nd legion, and the remaining praetorian cohort of Galba, by extending, will have the same frontage of Antony’s two praetorian cohorts. As Appian claims Octavian’s praetorians were killed fighting Antony’s praetorians, this would explain the missing praetorian cohort from Galba’s order of battle. It is one praetorian cohort from Galba’s force that is eliminated, not all of them.
The end result is I have no problem accepting for this period, praetorian cohorts of 2000 men.
Posts: 539
Threads: 18
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
8
Given the commonly accepted view that a legion cohort of this period at full fighting strength is probably almost exactly 500 men (6 centuries of 80 + 'officers), would it not be more likely that 2,000 men formed as Praetorians would be organised in 4, otherwise normal, cohorts?
This would indeed be suggested as a likely evolution of the Extraordinarii that we were partially discussing in that other thread, the Polybian standard numbers of which are also "about 2000 men"; given that the Extraordinarii were the original 'guards of the praetorium' in camps.
Note: Accepting, however, that 'cohort' is perhaps not yet a/the standard sizes that the Imperial period suggests in their between 2 and 6 different meanings.
Mark wrote:
Given the commonly accepted view that a legion cohort of this period at full fighting strength is probably almost exactly 500 men (6 centuries of 80 + 'officers), would it not be more likely that 2,000 men formed as Praetorians would be organised in 4, otherwise normal, cohorts?
Personally I do not believe those who “hold to the commonly accepted view” have undertaken a comprehensive study of the empirical data, so I don’t hold their conclusions in high regard. Previously on this group I have banged on about when is a cohort a cohort? I have over the last eight years found that a legion has three cohort organisations, and many of the ancient authors simply call them a “cohort.” The three cohort organisations represent the Triad, which is the plane, unity and diversity which equals harmony. Again this is based on Pythagorean doctrine. A 4800 man legion can be organised into 60 centuries each of 80 men, but there is nothing to stop the Romans from organising the men into centuries of 100 men. And when they want to….they do so. The legion has an organisation to match any need. It is far more flexible than most have ever imagined. If in doubt see Livy (8 8), who has attempted to describe most of them.
Back to the early praetorians. Appian writes that the Martian legion while being transported by sea was accompanied by 2000 praetorians. However, at the battle of Forum Gallorum, Appian has the Martian legion accompanied by five cohorts. Plutarch has 2000 praetorians described in cohorts (plural) while Appian is singular. So 2000 men could equate to five cohorts of 400 men? Therefore, five little cohorts make a big cohort. The problem is, if the ancients do not give a number, the size the cohort mentioned could be one of the three organisations. And then there is the cohort organisation and size formed from men taken out of the legion. So can we now be sure that a praetorian cohort is made up of five cohorts of 400 men? No we can’t! Appian states “towards the number of 2000 men,” so it’s not exactly 2000 men. The end result is the correct numbers and organisation of a praetorian cohort does neatly conform to how my research has found a legion should be organised for this period which is related to the Pythagorean cosmos. Laugh all you want but I will be the last one laughing. The next step is when Augustus comes to power he splits one praetorian larger cohort into two cohorts and adjusts the organisation to conform to the tribal expansion that occurs during his reign (as dictated by the Pythagorean cosmos). The end result is praetorian cohorts of 1000 men.
Mark wrote:
This would indeed be suggested as a likely evolution of the Extraordinarii that we were partially discussing in that other thread, the Polybian standard numbers of which are also "about 2000 men"; given that the Extraordinarii were the original 'guards of the praetorium' in camps.
In accordance with my research Mark…..you are spot on. I was always taught…nothing comes from a vacuum….and yes…the early praetorians (both infantry and cavalry) are modelled on the extraordinarii. However, the figure I have for the extraordinarii is over 2000 men, not under 2000 men.
Posts: 539
Threads: 18
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
8
Quote:...............
In accordance with my research Mark…..you are spot on. I was always taught…nothing comes from a vacuum….and yes…the early praetorians (both infantry and cavalry) are modelled on the extraordinarii. However, the figure I have for the extraordinarii is over 2000 men, not under 2000 men.
We agree on something! 
Whilst I noted before that I do not "dismiss" your cosmological and/or mathematical basis for changing organisation(s), I will admit that (as my little thesis, if it ever gets finished, shows) I do not think it likely - for I think the Roman approach is much, much simpler (which soldiers like) and, indeed, rather standardised throughout the period. I will be very interested in your eventual comments and look forward to a lively discussion.
When it comes to the Polybian standard Extraordinarii, yes, the total would be a little over 2,100 men when 'officers' are included.
However, returning to the 'Early Praetorians' I would probably suggest two things: firstly that there are very sensible tactical and operational (including logistics) reasons for cohorts to indeed be broadly similar, especially when reading accounts such as you have mentioned, and it is the simplest choice; secondly, that during the Late Republic there seems to be no real references (that I am aware of) that the Romans fielded their own cavalry and this is before (we assume) the regular auxilia ala were formed - so at that point a 'praetorian cohort' (like a legionary one) would probably be all infantry.
It's worth a note here on your comments on the 'empirical' evidence that I simply wasn't sure how to answer in the other thread....
I have assumed you mean that we must take cognizance of all the numbers quoted in all the sources and they are all then a result of standard organisation? If so, then I now understand where you are coming from, but don't necessarily agree. For I believe (as would be the case in any part of history) that the numbers quoted are the results after changes and not necessarily prime - ie that the figures we were looking at for the Battle of Cannae are indicative because the legions are reinforced 'back' to (near) full strength; but that the Garrison of Sicily is a result based upon what was needed for there, not prime organisation.
We shall see....
Mark wrote:
Whilst I noted before that I do not "dismiss" your cosmological and/or mathematical basis for changing organisation(s), I will admit that (as my little thesis, if it ever gets finished, shows) I do not think it likely - for I think the Roman approach is much, much simpler (which soldiers like) and, indeed, rather standardised throughout the period. I will be very interested in your eventual comments and look forward to a lively discussion.
Well Mark it could be something as simple as a century originally having 40 men then overtime increased to 60 men then overtime increased to 80 men then overtime increased to 100 men.
Mark wrote:
When it comes to the Polybian standard Extraordinarii, yes, the total would be a little over 2,100 men when 'officers' are included.
Oh we are close in numbers. However, I have more men than 2100 and this does not include officers. As the primary sources have a distinct trait of omitting officers, I display the numbers with and without officers.
Mark wrote:
However, returning to the 'Early Praetorians' I would probably suggest two things: firstly that there are very sensible tactical and operational (including logistics) reasons for cohorts to indeed be broadly similar,
We are in agreement again…the praetorians follow the standard organisation of the legion.
Mark wrote:
Secondly….a 'praetorian cohort' (like a legionary one) would probably be all infantry.
Now you have to go and spoil it by disagreeing. :lol: I made it a policy when doing this book not to presume anything. I have not gone into this project with a preconceived theory. I wanted the primary sources to tell me what is what. As a result I have found sufficient data and textual information to show a praetorian cohort is a cohors equitata miliariae. So if you believe the extraordinarii were the forerunners of the praetorian cohort then how can you now say the praetorian cohorts did not include cavalry? I’m not asking you to answer the question, I am pointing out what I see as a contradiction.
Mark wrote:
I have assumed you mean that we must take cognizance of all the numbers quoted in all the sources and they are all then a result of standard organisation? If so, then I now understand where you are coming from, but don't necessarily agree.
You will change you mind if you undertook a comprehensive study of the numbers.
Mark wrote:
For I believe (as would be the case in any part of history) that the numbers quoted are the results after changes and not necessarily prime - ie that the figures we were looking at for the Battle of Cannae are indicative because the legions are reinforced 'back' to (near) full strength; but that the Garrison of Sicily is a result based upon what was needed for there, not prime organisation.
It’s not about comparing examples. It’s about taking all the primary source data, and then put them in categories. From this data base you can then subdivided again and again into various categories, so that one category could include Roman army numbers with only 1000 cavalry, Roman army numbers with 2000 cavalry and Roman army numbers with 3000 cavalry attached. It’s a lot of work but it is extremely insightful as mathematical patterns emerge. And these patterns are road signs.
Mark wrote:
We shall see....
Yes, the proof is in the pudding.
Posts: 539
Threads: 18
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
8
Quote:...........................
Mark wrote:
Secondly….a 'praetorian cohort' (like a legionary one) would probably be all infantry.
Now you have to go and spoil it by disagreeing. :lol: I made it a policy when doing this book not to presume anything. I have not gone into this project with a preconceived theory. I wanted the primary sources to tell me what is what. As a result I have found sufficient data and textual information to show a praetorian cohort is a cohors equitata miliariae. So if you believe the extraordinarii were the forerunners of the praetorian cohort then how can you now say the praetorian cohorts did not include cavalry? I’m not asking you to answer the question, I am pointing out what I see as a contradiction...............
Oh, not at all! Firstly, I do indeed believe that a Praetorian Cohort of the Imperial Period (as I will specifically suggest in that little thesis and am now therefore getting ahead of myself) was indeed organised like an auxilia cohors equitatae milliariae - but only after such units came into existence.
[In this case I am defining for purposes of discussion that: Early Republic covers the time-frame of the Polybian Legions and Socii Allies; Late Republic covers the post-Marian more 'plebian' legions when Rome did not appear (happy to be referred to sources that disagree) to provide it's own cavalry or 'lighter auxiliary' infantry components, but relied upon Allies/Mercenaries; and the Imperial Period when the regular long-term permanent legions were established with their regularised auxilia cohors and ala counterparts.]
On that basis, the earliest Praetorian cohort may have been just infantry and replaced the infantry component of the [i]Extraordinarii [/i]replacement. I am not aware (apart from in fiction) that there are references to the Extraordinarii after the Polybian/Early Republic period (please correct me), but the role would still be required (and is attested in sources like Josephus ( BJ)); I therefore suggest that the necessary cavalry component would simply have been a particular selection from what was available.
However, at whatever point we decide the transition to the Imperial Period occurs (for organisational purposes) and certainly by the time the Praetorian Cohorts are firmly ensconced in the 6 'other' cities around Italy and 3 in Rome itself, then I believe they would be fully established as above - all being brought into Rome and increased to 10 in total a bit later.
While you were tucked up in your bed sleeping Mark I have been furiously working the calculator. I have learnt the Romans do not approach their military organisation in an ad hoc manner. Everything is calculated. After perusing the praetorian chapters I realised I had not explored how the Romans end up with the number of praetorian cohorts they have. The end result is the number of praetorian cohorts follows the same mathematical ratio between the tribes and the cosmos. It’s the same old ratio used throughout their history so it’s not a new mathematical ratio I’ve introduced to make the maths agree. I did the early praetorian cohorts and got a perfect mathematical relationship between the numbers of legions that can be levied by the tribal system. It works out to be a maximum of five praetorian cohorts for one commander. I then went after Dio’s claim that Augustus had 10,000 praetorians organised into 10 divisions and 6000 urbanician organised into four divisions. How did Ross Cowan in his thesis (page 66) come up with 15,000 urbanician?
I did the maths and the experiment started to go pear shape...I got more men than I need. However, I subtracted the praetorians from the total which left me with 4000 men or four divisions of 1000 men. The four divisions follow the same organisation of the praetorians. Now Dio claims the urban cohorts number 6000 men not 4000 men, so I went and calculated the number of urbanicians that theoretically should be in Dio’s time and got exactly 6000 men. Dio’s claim there is 10,000 praetorians under Augustus is correct, but the figure of 6000 urbanician organised into four divisions of 1500 men is impossible to create under Augustus, but is the perfect under Severus. So I am coming to the conclusion, Dio’s has mixed two sources. Taking all this data concerning the praetorians, it all mathematically flows back to the extraordinarii. So by taking the total number of infantry in the extraordinarii and halving them, this is equivalent to two praetorian cohorts during the reign of Augustus. The icing on the cake is every figure given by Hyginus for the praetorian cavalry aligns with the system.
Posts: 539
Threads: 18
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
8
Quote:While you were tucked up in your bed sleeping Mark I have been furiously working the calculator. I have learnt the Romans do not approach their military organisation in an ad hoc manner. ..................... I then went after Dio’s claim that Augustus had 10,000 praetorians organised into 10 divisions ................................. The icing on the cake is every figure given by Hyginus for the praetorian cavalry aligns with the system.
Sorry for the delay, but I wondered about responding as it touches very closely on the thrust of that little thesis of mine - of which more later in a new thread.
I too believe that the Romans do not approach their military organisation in an ad hoc manner, however no calculator is needed - the Romans didn't even have an abacus and doing maths with Roman numerals is laborious .
Whilst reviewing all the sources I was aware of and coming up with my little theory, I have come to the belief that many authors (both ancient and more recent) have used their own sources and that those sources do not seem to contain exact organisations, but they probably do use details like ' quingenaria' and ' milliaria'. In Dio's case I believe he knows that there were 10 milliarae Praetorian cohorts and thus he has done the sum 10 x 1,000 = 10,000 to use as his number. I believe that there were less than this.
My near name sake 'Hyginus' (or even Pseudo-) has also done this and taken it to extremes - he is most definitely of the opinion that ' milliarae' means exactly 1,000 men. There are more than enough oddities and questions in Hyginus that I believe the accuracy of that source should be seriously in doubt.
Mark wrote:
Whilst reviewing all the sources I was aware of and coming up with my little theory, I have come to the belief that many authors (both ancient and more recent) have used their own sources and that those sources do not seem to contain exact organisations, but they probably do use details like 'quingenaria' and 'milliaria'.
My conclusion is the sources they use list the number of centuries.
Mark wrote:
In Dio's case I believe he knows that there were 10 milliarae Praetorian cohorts and thus he has done the sum 10 x 1,000 = 10,000 to use as his number. I believe that there were less than this.
Rounding in the primary sources is I believe the number one problem. I go into detail of one battle for the figures given and show the rounding that occurs during every process. The infantry legions are rounded, the cavalry figures are rounded, and then the total for the army is rounded. This all adds up.
Mark wrote:
My near name sake 'Hyginus' (or even Pseudo-) has also done this and taken it to extremes - he is most definitely of the opinion that 'milliarae' means exactly 1,000 men. There are more than enough oddities and questions in Hyginus that I believe the accuracy of that source should be seriously in doubt.
Unlike many I am extremely fond of Hyginus. His numbers and the contradictions provide so much insight that I would comment that if your thesis does not help you gain an understanding of Hyginus, then I would recommend revising your calculations. As I stated before, Hyginus has combined two mathematical systems, split them and the world is your oyster.
I have finished the praetorian guards from the extraordinarii to after Severus. There is a lot of empirical data to work with. The 10 divisions under Augustus are correct, the nine cohorts under Tiberius are also correct.
Posts: 539
Threads: 18
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
8
Quote:..................
Unlike many I am extremely fond of Hyginus. His numbers and the contradictions provide so much insight that I would comment that if your thesis does not help you gain an understanding of Hyginus, then I would recommend revising your calculations. .................
Then the discussion will certainly be interesting!
For I have indeed come to the, seemingly not unreasonable, conclusion that, when considering all the texts that we know have been lost, then the survival of (Ps-)Hyginus has possibly hindered our understanding no end.
Best get back to writing then..........
Mark wrote:
For I have indeed come to the, seemingly not unreasonable, conclusion that, when considering all the texts that we know have been lost, then the survival of (Ps-)Hyginus has possibly hindered our understanding no end.
Ok, now it’s my turn to apologise for the delay in replying. I have been fervently perusing a review of my research. One can never get enough feedback.
I strongly disagree with your assessment of Hyginus. To come to such a conclusion I believe your investigative methodologies are flawed. You approach Hyginus as a mathematical problem by simply following the laws of arithmetic. You are failing to see the obvious or you are asking the wrong questions. Why is it that the total number of praetorian cavalry given by Hyginus never exceeds 900 men? That’s the sort of questions that will cause inroads.
What draws my attention is references like the Romans raising 10 legions in 494 BC. Both Livy and Dionysius make this claim, but Dionysius adds each legion numbered 4000 men. In 450 BC, Dionysius writes that 10 legions were raised, but Livy does not. Then for the year 349 BC Livy mentions 10 legions were raised but then states that such a large levy would be difficult to fulfil. So why in 349 BC is raising 10 legions a problem but it isn’t in 494 BC? Livy could realise by checking sources that the Romans cannot levy 10 legions in 349 BC because he would know the number of centuries required for 10 legions far exceeds the number of centuries in the tribes for 394 BC. If so, then why didn’t Livy make the same connection with the year 494 BC? Putting aside I can answer this by referring back to my tribal levy system, the year 494 BC is the first time a dictator is elected to serve in conjunction with two consuls. So we have a dictator and two consuls leading the army. This is completely out of character, but it does tell us that 10 legions cannot be divided by three commanders. Now if you are prepared to do a study in how the Roman army is distributed between dictators and consuls you can sort this exercise out. I spent years studying such patterns and as the Romans are sticklers for following protocol, the answer is reveals itself.
Mark wrote:
Best get back to writing then..........
I have small loose ends to do otherwise I am finished. I had a meeting with Professor Ridley last week and I will be implementing his strategy for the book, which is to self publish 200 copies, subtract copies for those who have contributed and who I have promised a copy, leaving the majority to be freely given to the major universities around the world. I will have considered my job done and I will go out and celebrate getting my life back.
Posts: 539
Threads: 18
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
8
Quote:.......................
I strongly disagree with your assessment of Hyginus. To come to such a conclusion I believe your investigative methodologies are flawed. You approach Hyginus as a mathematical problem by simply following the laws of arithmetic. You are failing to see the obvious or you are asking the wrong questions. .............
Okay, I don't see Hyginus as a 'mathematical problem', especially as I don't have a real problem with his maths per se - but actually have concluded that he is something of a maths whiz and has gotten carried way. What I do have a problem with is that he makes a whole host of odd and incoherent statements and strange military pronouncements.
What I am particularly happy to point out is that he is a self-admitted military innocent (so he could not only be wrong in many things) and I am not aware we have any evidence that his pamphlet was ever adopted at all - particularly when considering the anomalies it seems to show.
The only 'flaw' I do seem to be guilty of, IMHO, is a willingness to question when something doesn't seem right. Whether, or not, it goes against accepted norms.
As to why 10 legions may be difficult to levy at different times - I can think of a whole host of reasons - none of which have anything to do with numbers of Tribes and the Stars. That's not to say that that might not be the reason, but I'll always vote for the more likely and simpler solutions first.
Overall I'm sure our methods are different, however. From my POV I think you might well be looking for patterns that aren't there, whilst I'm looking to fill the gaps with straight lines and querying when they are not. If I ever have the chance, I will be interested to read. Mine will be much simpler and not currently intended for publication, but to propose a much simpler theory - which should still have a chance of fitting nearly all the 'sources' (but perhaps not all!).
Mark wrote:
From my POV I think you might well be looking for patterns that aren't there,
I always endeavour to try and understand the methodology adopted by a source. To paraphrase Barbara Tuchman: “let the evidence guide the research – do not allow preconceptions to lead you to a wrong conclusion.”
Hyginus’ mathematical continuity is he applies six centuries to a quingenariae and 10 centuries to a miliariae. However, he does not abide by this doctrine. He clearly claims a quingenariae is half that of a miliariae and his maths support this. The equitata miliariae has 760 infantry and 240 cavalry, so a quingenariae being half would amount to 500 men consisting of 380 cavalry and 120 infantry.
Hyginus then claims an ala quingenariae had 16 squadrons and an ala miliariae had 24 squadrons. As he claims an ala miliariae is half that of an ala quingenariae then an ala quingenariae must have 12 squadrons not 16 squadrons. So far Hyginus shows a continuity of methodology with his contradictions. The question has to be asked concerning Hyginus’ 16 squadrons is has he included the four squadrons of equites legionis?
It is quite clear Hyginus is using a mathematical system based on increments of five centuries but has transposed them onto another organisational system (the six centuries for a quingenariae). The six centuries is divisible by the 12 squadrons for an ala quingenariae and the 24 squadrons for an ala miliariae but not for the five and 10 century organisation which is what his maths is based on. There is a lot more empirical data in Hyginus to work with that gives more insight into exactly what he is doing. The numbers for the praetorian cavalry make the difference.
|
