Renatus wrote:
I don't remember that. Can you give a reference?
The reference is (2 1)(2 2)
Renatus wrote:
Is this hypothetical or actual? If actual, again can you give a reference?
My first and second part of the book which you have details how this works. However, for 300 cavalry attached see Livy (7 25 8), (21 17 5), (26 28 7), (29 24 14), (32 28 10), (29 28 10), (40 1 5), (41 9 2), (42 52 8), For 200 cavalry: Livy (40 18 6), (44 21 8), For 400 cavalry: Livy (23 24 13), (44 21 8)
Renatus wrote:
I'm sorry; you've lost me. Can you explain more fully, please?
You divide the 300 cavalry by the six tribunes to arrive at each tribune has under his command 50 cavalry.
Renatus wrote:
Hang on! Aren't you in danger of rejecting the very hard evidence that you were calling for earlier on?
Definitely not. I don’t consider unit return records or pay details as hard evidence. Unit sizes given in the primary sources are my focus.
Posts: 4,223
Threads: 176
Joined: Mar 2003
Reputation:
171
Quote:the auxiliary cavalry... share a common ratio and they are on the same century as the auxiliary infantry.
I don't believe so. Vegetius II.2 says that the legionary cavalry were on the the centurial rolls; he's not talking about auxiliaries here. In the auxiliary cohors equitata the cavalry turmae were separate - they had their own barrack accomodation and their own officers (the decurions mentioned on the papyri above).
Quote:primary sources stating a legion of 5000 men was accompanied by 300 cavalry etc.
These are sources from the middle republic. By the later republic and empire the Roman citizen cavalry had been replaced by auxiliary cavalry in their own units. Legions retained around 120 equites (the figure is given by Josephus), who were mounted legionaries and numbered on the century rolls.
Vegetius is therefore suggesting that, at some point, a larger cavalry component was restored to the legions. Either that, or he's working from a much earlier republican source (Cato?).
Combining statistics from wildly different eras of Roman history (the third century BC and the sixth AD, for example, or even the republic and empire, or principiate and dominate) only confuses the picture and leads to critical misunderstanding, I think.
Quote:Unit sizes given in the primary sources are my focus.
Many of the sources you are using, while ancient, are not primary. Livy is not a primary source, nor is Vegetius. Both wrote about events and army structures of centuries past, and got their information from previous historians. They are secondary, at best.
The papryi I quoted on the thread above, however, are primary sources.
Nathan Ross
Posts: 1,972
Threads: 40
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation:
101
Quote:The reference is (2 1)(2 2)
Quote:Vegetius II.2 says that the legionary cavalry were on the the centurial rolls
Where are you two getting this from? Vegetius does not even mention centuries in 2.1 and 2.2.
Quote:You divide the 300 cavalry by the six tribunes to arrive at each tribune has under his command 50 cavalry.
I can do the maths, although the figures for cavalry contingents of 200 or 400 look a bit problematical. It's "In regard to the tribune, this means the squadron organisation is defunct and the decurion organisation kicks in" that I don't get.
Quote:I don’t consider unit return records or pay details as hard evidence.
Blimey! A librarius or actuarius sits down and records the actual numbers of those in the unit in which he himself serves and the actual amounts paid to them. If this isn't hard evidence, what the devil is?
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)
Posts: 4,223
Threads: 176
Joined: Mar 2003
Reputation:
171
Quote:Vegetius does not even mention centuries in 2.1 and 2.2
The line from II.2 is, I think, what Steven was referring to: "But when the legion is fully complemented...it has its own legion cavalry incorporated in it and on the same rolls..."
You're quite right though - no mention of centuries! Thinking about it now, Vegetius seems to mean only that the cavalry component formed part of the overall legion strength (although this could be a translation issue - 'rolls'?). He perhaps had the citizen cavalry of the republican legion in mind.
I was extrapolating, however, based on inscriptional evidence (if I recall correctly) of legion equites giving their centurion's name, or being listed with others in the centuria.
Nathan Ross
Posts: 1,972
Threads: 40
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation:
101
Quote:Thinking about it now, Vegetius seems to mean only that the cavalry component formed part of the overall legion strength (although this could be a translation issue - 'rolls'?).
I don't think that there is a problem with the translation. To paraphrase, Vegetius is saying that, when a legion has its cohorts complete, with their heavy- and light-armed components present and the legionary cavalry attached and carried on the same rolls ( hisdem matriculis), and all of the same mind, it usually prevails over any enemy. There is no suggestion that the rolls in question are those of the centuries. Indeed, it could be argued that, as the only subdivision of the legion mentioned is the cohort, Vegetius is referring to cohort registers. This would be consistent with his allocating a certain number of cavalrymen to each cohort. Whether this has any relation to reality is another matter but that may be what Vegetius believed. It is true to say that there is epigraphic evidence of cavalrymen being included in centuries but I am not sure that it is extensive and it would require an in depth investigation of that evidence to be able to say whether or not it is sufficient to support a contention that any particular number of cavalrymen formed a regular component of the century.
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)
Posts: 4,223
Threads: 176
Joined: Mar 2003
Reputation:
171
Quote:There is no suggestion that the rolls in question are those of the centuries.
Yes, quite true. My use of 'on the centurial rolls' above was just lazy shorthand for 'on the strength of the legion'. Thanks for clearing that up!
Quote:It is true to say that there is epigraphic evidence of cavalrymen being included in centuries but I am not sure that it is extensive.
A quick check finds these five examples of legion equites mentioned as being in a centuria. I'm sure there are probably more:
CIL 03, 11239: C(aius) Valeri/us C(ai) f(ilius) Gal(eria) / Proculus / Calagurri / eq(ues) leg(ionis) XI C(laudiae) F(idelis) / |(centuria) Vindicis
CIL 08, 02593: Ael(ius) Severus / eq(ues) leg(ionis) III Aug(ustae) / |(centuria) Iul(i) Candidi
EDCS-41700165: C(aius) Antonius Valens / equ(es) leg(ionis) III Cyr(enaicae) / |(centuria) PROVTIANI
AE 1927, 00038: Q(uintus) Geminius Q(uinti) f(ilius) / Pol(l)ia Thunusid/a eques |(centuria) Catonis
RIB-01, 00481: ...inus eque[ s leg(ionis ] / II Ad(iutricis) P(iae) F(idelis) |(centuria) Petroni
There are significantly more in the praetorians, which might mean only that the praetorians had more cavalry, or that their tombstones tend to be more numerous.
There's also a legionary officer called an optio equitum, who might perhaps have led legion cavalrymen on detachment, but no 'centurio equitum', of course, nor any legion decurions. Josephus's figure of 120 cavalry for the legion does lend itself rather conveniently to the idea that there were two equites in each century!
Nathan Ross
Posts: 1,972
Threads: 40
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation:
101
There is also RIB 254, which I am a bit dubious about as it is an old copy of a lost original and the centurial sign is missing, and CIL VIII 2568, 18, which records an optio equitum in the fifth century of the eighth cohort of Leg III Augusta at Lambaesis.
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)
Nathan wrote:
In the auxiliary cohors equitata the cavalry turmae were separate - they had their own barrack accomodation and their own officers (the decurions mentioned on the papyri above).
The organisation of the auxiliary cavalry and the equites legionis are the same as they are created from the same system (the tribal system). However, the ratio of auxiliary infantry to auxiliary cavalry is not the same as ratio of legionaries to cavalry. I understand the auxiliary cavalry act independently but they are created from the same system.
Nathan wrote:
These are sources from the middle republic. By the later republic and empire the Roman citizen cavalry had been replaced by auxiliary cavalry in their own units. Legions retained around 120 equites (the figure is given by Josephus), who were mounted legionaries and numbered on the century rolls.
The 120 cavalry or equites legionis have been around for centuries. They are simply the 600 sex suffragia form the Servian constitution split five ways. For the campaign of 501 BC, Dionysius (5 75) writes
“Separated those who were of military age from the older men, and distributing the former into centuries, he formed four bodies of foot and horse. He kept one, the best, about his person while of the remaining three bodies….”
The reference to keeping one, the best about his person represents 120 bodyguard cavalry. Dictators get 120 bodyguard cavalry. During the Third Macedonian war, in 168 BC, Scipio Nasica in order to capture the Petra Pass took with him 8,000 men and a body of 120 cavalry. Plutarch (Aemilius Paulus 15 7) The same practice is still continuing.
I am in agreement that the Roman citizen cavalry had been replaced by auxiliary units, but all Roman organisation be it infantry or cavalry, auxiliary or Roman is governed by the tribal system.
Nathan wrote:
Combining statistics from wildly different eras of Roman history (the third century BC and the sixth AD, for example, or even the republic and empire, or principiate and dominate) only confuses the picture and leads to critical misunderstanding, I think.
That posting was for Evan and has something to do with our conversation offline. But the reference does make a nice footnote. However, the practice of combining statistics from different eras is very common among academics and also members of this forum. I have advised against it many times in the past.
Nathan wrote:
Many of the sources you are using, while ancient, are not primary. Livy is not a primary source, nor is Vegetius. Both wrote about events and army structures of centuries past, and got their information from previous historians. They are secondary, at best.
We do not have Livy’s complete sources, therefore Livy is a primary source. This chestnut has been used before and I find it is not relevant to this discussion.
Renatus wrote:
I can do the maths, although the figures for cavalry contingents of 200 or 400 look a bit problematical. It's "In regard to the tribune, this means the squadron organisation is defunct and the decurion organisation kicks in" that I don't get.
It’s simple. If a maniple has two centuries and you take one century away it is no longer a maniple. Therefore, what you have left is the century organisation. So if 30 cavalry make a cavalry maniple and a tribune commands 50 cavalry, the 50 cavalry cannot be organised into maniples, but they can be organised into ten centuries each of 5 men. So the century system prevails.
Renatus
Blimey! A librarius or actuarius sits down and records the actual numbers of those in the unit in which he himself serves and the actual amounts paid to them. If this isn't hard evidence, what the devil is?
It’s not hard evidence. Had the librarius stated the full number of what the unit should number then listed the number of men available, then it would be hard evidence. For example from a cohort at full strength of 500 men we have etc. etc. If this was done there would be no debate about unit sizes. If it is hard evidence then why does Coella come to totally different conclusion than Duncan-Jones and why does Duncan-Jones have differing conclusions to Jones. It’s just ring around the rosy. Even Wheeler is extremely sceptical about the value of epigraphical evidence (See Wheeler: The Legion as Phalanx in the Late Empire Part II). I do recommend this paper.
Posts: 15,116
Threads: 415
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
76
Quote: (See Wheeler: The Legion as Phalanx in the Late Empire Part II). I do recommend this paper.
Those in need of copies of his articles can send me a request by email ( [email protected]) 
Posts: 15,116
Threads: 415
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
76
Quote:Those in need of copies of his articles can send me a request by email ([email protected])
The articles have ben sent. 8.5 mb should not be a problem (3 attachments), but if you asked and did not receive, contact me. :whistle:
|
