10-03-2013, 05:53 PM
Thanks Robert!
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!
Quote: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!
Nathan Ross
