Roman Legion in late Antiquity

[Mark Hygate]

..............
Because in a post you made you stated this..............

Ah, I apologize then......a misunderstanding.

I believe the Principate legions (possibly added to even more) up to 197AD and including I, II & III Pathica, were of the 10 cohort standard structure and many still existed on the borders, but now classified as limitanei along with the original auxilia of the same period. They could be of any size up to full strength, but probably not and depending on need (number of garrisons required).

The standard Legio Comitatenses, however, is a direct development of the often equally standard 2 cohort vexilation of previous years, but now permanently detached - and retains the 2 cohort/12 century structure and almost exactly 1,000 strength (83 x 12 = 996 + a few more?).

The tombstone of a man from a Xth cohort I suspect would most probably be from the former, but could possibly be one from the latter (if, say, the 'IXth' & Xth had been detached) if a permanent link back to parent was maintained. I do find the latter to be unlikely, but not impossible. Detail on that tombstone may help towards a suitable interpretation.

[Nathan Ross]

The tombstone of a man from a Xth cohort I suspect would most probably be from the former, but could possibly be one from the latter... Detail on that tombstone may help towards a suitable interpretation.

There are two that I can think of, both for tetrarchic Herculiani legions:

(CIL 08, 08440) An inscription dedicating a mithraeum constructed by the 7th and 10th cohorts of II Herculia in Mauretania Caesariensis (Sitifis), probably dating to Maximian's campaign of 298: Deo Invicto Mit(h)r(a)e leg(io) II Herculiae fec(it) / co(ho)r(te)s X et VII votum solverunt / l(ibentes) a(nimo)

(AE 1980, 777) a brick-stamp from Sirmium, 10th cohort of VI Herculia: L(egio) VI H(e)r(culia) C(ohors) X (Another inscription to VI Herculia (AE 1964, 0226) from Mursa, is dated c.306-311, so this is definitely a tetrarchic legion.)

Both of these clearly had ten cohorts in the tetrarchic period, and (probably) were raised on the old model with c.6000 men.

The real question, I think, is whether the real 'new' legions of the post-Constantine period, the ones supposedly based on the legion vexillations, were organised into cohorts or not.

Does anyone know of an inscription or other reference to cohorts in the legions of the comitatensis, iuniores or seniores?

[Nathan Ross]

The statement that Severus 'doubled the size of the Guard' (whilst I would really appreciate an ancient reference from anyone, I have seen this mentioned before) - could that not equally mean that he 'added to the 10 cohorts of the Praetorian Guard the 10 cohorts of the II Parthica

Hmm, interesting - you could well be right!

It seems the idea about Severus doubling the size of the guard (by increasing the numbers in a cohort, not the number of cohorts) comes originally from Herodian, who wrote that Severus 'quadrupled the number of troops at Rome'. Durry (in Les Cohortes Pretoriennes of 1938, which I haven't read) seems to have been the first to suggest that this meant an expansion of size for the praetorians, urbani and vigiles combined (although how that 'quadruples' them I don't know!). This was supported by Birley (Septimius Severus and the Roman Army, 1969), and accepted by Field (Army Reforms... in Historia, above). But of course Herodian might have been exaggerating - or, as some others more recently have suggested, he could indeed have been adding II Parthica to the 'troops in Rome'!

Assuming you mean the Marius of the 'reforms' (c105BC) - then legions of 60 centuries can easily be read as 60 x 100 and an author (without detailed knowledge) therefore, not entirely unreasonably, equating to 6,000.

I've read that 'Marius 6000-man legion' thing in several places. Doesn't it come from Livy? (republican history is a bit of a grey area for me!) I notice that the exceptor of Festus writes sex milium et ducentorum hominum legionem primus Gaius Marius conscripsit... :-|

[Mark Hygate]

...............
I've read that 'Marius 6000-man legion' thing in several places. Doesn't it come from Livy? (republican history is a bit of a grey area for me!) I notice that the exceptor of Festus writes sex milium et ducentorum hominum legionem primus Gaius Marius conscripsit... :-|

Livy certainly uses the number of 6,000 later in his (surviving) work, when he uses 4,000, 4,200 & 5,000 earlier (which jibes with Polybius). I have wondered about this and find it a bit strange if not anomalous. However, given the legions of Livy's time (at the beginning) most probably did consist of 10 cohorts each of 6 centuries and I can think of no reason for there to have been change; I am not surprised that a figure of 6,000 is sometimes used. We should also bear in mind that the legions perhaps got larger again (increase using milliarae cohorts) at the end of his writings, although those are sadly lost.

I am certainly skeptical about an actual increase in the size of the legions beyond the 5,000 'in extremis' numbers of Polybius and the 10 x 6 century cohorts of Marius, Pompey & Caesar, moving towards the 10 cohort Imperial legion with larger first cohort and legionary cavalry that seems to fit most of the archaeology that I am aware of. Slow evolution rather than any sudden radical change.

[Frank]

The standard Legio Comitatenses, however, is a direct development of the often equally standard 2 cohort vexilation of previous years, but now permanently detached - and retains the 2 cohort/12 century structure and almost exactly 1,000 strength (83 x 12 = 996 + a few more?).

If we look to the structure of the old legion and of auxilia cohorts acting independently (Domaszewski et al), this tribune should have a central, personal staff consisting at least of 1 cornicularius tribunis, 1 beneficarius tribunis and a few librarii. Double this, if this new 2-cohort-legion was really led by 2 tribunes. One of them of superior rank, the other his deputy.

However according to the research of Breeze, such staff personell was propably on the payroll of the centuries, Perhaps the tribune himself had no account and processes to pay and administrate them. So here again the question is about supernumerii or not. But honestly, no commander with a brain, let his cornicularius fight and risk his death. So I vote for supernumerarius. Finally 1000 sounds very reasonable.

[Nathan Ross]

Is there not a tombstone that states the infantryman it belongs to was a member of the Xth cohort of his Legion, and isn't that tombstone dated to the 4th Century?

Just wanted to return to this point for a moment.

I was just looking at some of the inscriptions to II Italica Divitensis from the Via Flaminia, possibly dating from Constantine's advance on Rome in AD312. I notice that one of them, from Ocriculum, apparently mentions the cohort number as well:

AE 1982, 00258 (Ocriculum): D(is) M(anibus) Val(erius) Iustin/us miles legionis s/ecund(a)e Italic(a)e Divite/nsium civis R(a)etus / militavit annis V / vixit an(n)is XXV co(ho)r(ti)/s VII Secundus fra/tiri patri carissim/o bene merenti / memoriam feci/t

Does this mean that he was from the 7th cohort of his legion? If so, it perhaps means the Constantinian vexillation-legion that presumably evolved into the palatine legion Divitenses Seniores of the ND was, like the contemporary Herculia legions, organised into the traditional ten cohorts in the early fourth century...

[Robert Vermaat]

Does anyone know of an inscription or other reference to cohorts in the legions of the comitatensis, iuniores or seniores?

Are you looking for cohorts from older legions or Tetrarchic legions?

[Renatus]

A tombstone of similar format to that cited by Nathan is:

CIL XL 4085 (Ocriculum)
[i]D(is) M(anibus)/ Val(erius) Saturnani mil(es)/ leg(ionis) II Ital(icae) qui vix(it)/ an(nis) XXX mil(itavit) an(nis) XIII/ co(ho)r(tis) VI/ Val(erius) Laupicius fratri/ karissimo/ m(emoriam) f(aciendum) c(uravit)

The issue of cohorts is addressed in this article:
http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/zpe...081229.pdf
but my German is not up to sorting it out. Perhaps someone with a better command of the language could help.

[Nathan Ross]

Are you looking for cohorts from older legions or Tetrarchic legions?

I was wondering specifically whether there are references to cohorts in any of the 'new legions', those presumed to have been created by Constantine, that are later found in the Notitia Dig. So for example the Herculiani, Tungrecani, Moesiaci Seniores/Iunioresetc etc. The internal structure of these units still remains in doubt, of course - we can presume that they were smaller, and thus probably structured differently to a traditional legion of the principiate (the current idea being, I think, that they evolved from two-cohort vexillations of the tetrarchic era). So did they still use a cohort system, or something else?

The legion II Italica Divitensium, probably based on a vexillation of II Italica from Noricum and later (apparently) taken into the field army of Constantine, would seem to be an ideal example of the transition from old-style frontier legion to new-style field legion, in turn becoming comitatensis and then gaining palatine status. But if it was still using a ten-cohort divisional system in 312, that might mean that these 'new' legions were either the same size as the older ones, or used a miniature version of the traditional structure.

my German is not up to sorting it out. Perhaps someone with a better command of the language could help.

Mine neither! But it looks to be full of good stuff - thanks. Hopefully somebody might be able to help...

[Robert Vermaat]

my German is not up to sorting it out. Perhaps someone with a better command of the language could help.

Mine neither! But it looks to be full of good stuff - thanks. Hopefully somebody might be able to help...

Mine is. :wink: It's a good article, but mostly about the unit from Deutz, where it was, went and why. Not much about the cohorts I'm afraid.
The conclusion made here is taken from Speidel, who argued that that the men in this unit, like in other vexillations, were taken from several different cohorts, and this tactical organisation remained in place, albeit with smaller cohorts:

"Die Cohortenangabe erklärte M.P. Speidel in den von ihm behandelten Texten folgendermaßen:
Die Soldaten wurden bei Bildung einer vexillatio nicht nur aus den einzelnen Legionscohorten
ausgezogen, sondern blieben für die Dauer der Expedition nach Cohorten gegliedert,
wobei diesen verkleinerten Cohorten wohl - wie sonst den Centurien - taktische
und administrative Funktionen zukamen."

The cohorts were actually taking up the tasks which the original centuries had performed. Instead of centuries, the new and smaller legion was organised in cohorts:

"das heißt, die wesentlich verkleinerten Cohorten hatten die Funktion, die sonst
den Centurien zukam. Der Grund für eine Gliederung nach Cohorten, statt wie zunächst zu
erwarten, nach Centurien, liegt wohl in der erheblichen Reduzierung der Soldatenzahl. Vermutlich
waren die neu entstandenen Cohorten so klein, daß sich eine weitere Unterteilung in
Centurien erübrigte."

I'll have a look in Hoffmann (of course), plus other articles about LR cohorts.
From what I recall, the cohort remained to basic building block of the LR legion, but authors disagree about the number of men.

[Nathan Ross]

Thanks Robert!

From what I recall, the cohort remained the basic building block of the LR legion, but authors disagree about the number of men.

That's one view, I suppose, although I've heard several opposing ones!...

(approx): "The reason for a breakdown by cohorts, instead of first to centuries, probably lies in the significant reduction in the number of soldiers: the newly formed cohorts were so small that a further subdivision into centuries was unnecessary"

So Speidel suggests that the late legion 'cohort' was basically the old century renamed? Is there no evidence for the use of the century after cAD300?

But how small was this new 'cohort'? Evidence from later barracks (e.g the remodelled ones from South Shields, of c.AD230) suggests a 'century' (or other small-unit division) of 40 men, or even less. None of the later style barrack blocks seem to have as many as ten contubernium divisions.

A 'legion' of ten 'cohorts' of only 40 men each would be 400 men strong!

[Robert Vermaat]

You're welcome!

So Speidel suggests that the late legion 'cohort' was basically the old century renamed? Is there no evidence for the use of the century after cAD300?

No, S[peidel argued that in the case of this vexillation, the men from the paraent unit remained organised along the line of their parent cohorts, which were now much smaller. The parent unit no doubt remained organised as before, and the men from the vexillatio returned to their cohorts after the expedition. Speidel does not say (at least not in the article referenced in the German article) that this was the case for every new type legion. And we know from the fact that centurios as well as centenarii remained a part of the command structure, that the century may have remained present.

But how small was this new 'cohort'? Evidence from later barracks (e.g the remodelled ones from South Shields, of c.AD230) suggests a 'century' (or other small-unit division) of 40 men, or even less. None of the later style barrack blocks seem to have as many as ten contubernium divisions.
A 'legion' of ten 'cohorts' of only 40 men each would be 400 men strong!

Talk about your different interpretations... :whistle:
How many men were inside that barracks? If indeed 40, it could be a 'half century' (5 contuberniae), and a 'new cohort' if you wish of 80 men. A 'new type legion' could indeed be 400 men, or if the barracks instead held 80 men, it could be about 800, which comes close to other figures. On the other hand, limitanei units seem to have numbered only 300, so that's close to your 400 in South Shields.

What to say about numbers?
Infantry units mentioned by Ammianus number 300, 500, 800, 1000 and 1500 (XVII.1.4, XVIII.2.11, XXIV.1.6, XIV.1.2, XXIV.6.4, XXV.6.13-15, XXV.7.3).
Johannes Lydus mentioned cohortes of 300 and vexillationes of 500 (De Mag. I.46).

[Flavivs Aetivs]

This actually brigns to mind the role of the contorversial Ducenarius - could he possibly have be a cohort commander?

[Nathan Ross]

This actually brigns to mind the role of the contorversial Ducenarius - could he possibly have be a cohort commander?

I doubt it. I still haven't seen anything that links the ducenarius with the legion, new or old style. It only seems to occur as rank in the numeri of auxilia, and the scholae of the new guard units, which don't appear to have featured cohorts (or at least, I don't think any are ever mentioned anywhere...)

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I think a few Palatina units have cohorts mentioned but I am not sure.