The Vexillation

[Flavivs Aetivs]

But 300 is not divisible by 80, or am I being particularly dense?

I calculate the Numerus as eight eighty-man centuries, totalling 640 men, plus officers (19 officers approximately: A centurio and biarchus for each century, making 16, plus a Senator (Herald), Primicerius (Sort of like a Second-In-Command, Camp Chief, and Quartermaster), and of course the Tribunis. I might be forgetting one or two. If it had Ducenarii it would be 23 officers.

[antiochus]

Michael wrote:
But 300 is not divisible by 80, or am I being particularly dense?

Oh you’re referring back to 300 men. A numeri is a different ball game. I gave that example. 300 divided by four infantry equals 75 centuries. However, four infantry taken from a 60 century legion equals 240 men which is divisible by 80. Therefore, the 240 men can be organised into three centuries each of 80 men, as are the 240 cavalrymen. In total there are 480 men allocated to guard duty.

[antiochus]

Evan wrote:
I calculate the Numerus as eight eighty-man centuries, totalling 640 men, plus officers (19 officers approximately: A centurio and biarchus for each century, making 16, plus a Senator (Herald), Primicerius (Sort of like a Second-In-Command, Camp Chief, and Quartermaster), and of course the Tribunis. I might be forgetting one or two. If it had Ducenarii it would be 23 officers.

Have you ever considered the cavalry could be part of the equation? The Roman military is governed by the Pythagorean ratio 3:2. In relation to the legionaries and auxiliary, the legionaries constitute three parts and the auxiliary two parts. So 600 Romans would consist of three bodies each of 200, and 600 auxiliary would consist of two bodies each of 300. That is how simple the Pythagorean maths is employed. The 35 tribes consist of 21 tribes to 14 tribes, thereby creating the ratio 3:2. The 21 tribes equate to three units of seven, and the fourteen tribes two units of seven. This is the hebdomad system working in conjunction with the 3:2 ratio or the perfect fifth.

I’ve finished defining the size and organisation of the Late Roman legion. Pythagoras made it possible. It’s trying to decide which officers command what that bothers me, especially all the different names to deal with.

[Renatus]

I calculate the Numerus as eight eighty-man centuries, totalling 640 men, plus officers (19 officers approximately: A centurio and biarchus for each century, making 16, plus a Senator (Herald), Primicerius (Sort of like a Second-In-Command, Camp Chief, and Quartermaster), and of course the Tribunis. I might be forgetting one or two. If it had Ducenarii it would be 23 officers.

You may be right but it seems rather large to me. Can you let us have your reasoning?

A numeri is a different ball game. I gave that example. 300 divided by four infantry equals 75 centuries.

Please, Steven, numerus singular, numeri plural! Sorry, I'm on my hobbyhorse! To get back to the issue, where is there a unit of 75 centuries? Or are you suggesting that a numerus is the same as an old-style vexillation, cobbled together from detatchments from more than one legion? If so, I think that I would like to see the evidence.

[antiochus]

Michael wrote:
To get back to the issue, where is there a unit of 75 centuries? Or are you suggesting that a numerus is the same as an old-style vexillation, cobbled together from detatchments from more than one legion?

That would be one example.

Michael wrote:
If so, I think that I would like to see the evidence.

Evidence…it’s in the last section “Rome’s Lost Vigour.” You have the first two sections but not the third or the fourth (Rome’s Manhood and Rome’s Lost Vigour).

[Renatus]

Evidence…it’s in the last section “Rome’s Lost Vigour.” You have the first two sections but not the third or the fourth (Rome’s Manhood and Rome’s Lost Vigour).

I shall have to contain myself, then!

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I calculate the Numerus as eight eighty-man centuries, totalling 640 men, plus officers (19 officers approximately: A centurio and biarchus for each century, making 16, plus a Senator (Herald), Primicerius (Sort of like a Second-In-Command, Camp Chief, and Quartermaster), and of course the Tribunis. I might be forgetting one or two. If it had Ducenarii it would be 23 officers.

You may be right but it seems rather large to me. Can you let us have your reasoning?

A numeri is a different ball game. I gave that example. 300 divided by four infantry equals 75 centuries.

Please, Steven, numerus singular, numeri plural! Sorry, I'm on my hobbyhorse! To get back to the issue, where is there a unit of 75 centuries? Or are you suggesting that a numerus is the same as an old-style vexillation, cobbled together from detatchments from more than one legion? If so, I think that I would like to see the evidence.

I'm going off a Justinianic Papyrus that lists a Numerus of 508 men being stationed in Egypt + Zozimus. Obviously its not 480 or 560 men, as the former is too small and the latter would be an odd number of centuries, which the Romans didn't seem to like. Also that would equal 79% strength if the Numerus numbered 659 men (640+officers), which is about right based on 3rd century papyrii from Dura Europos which show its operational strength to vary between 70 and 80%.

So a strength of 640 men seems to make sense. I presume its 6 centuries of dedicated infantry and possibly 2 centuries of dedicated archers.

However, this doesn't take into account a possible integral cavalry element, if so then the Numerus could be 480 men + a few cavalry turmae, and that's a whole different ballgame.

Remember that I'm dealing with standardized Numeri like the Auxilia Palatina and some Limitanei regiments, found in the Notitia Dignitatum.

[antiochus]

Evan wrote:
I'm going off a Justinianic Papyrus that lists a Numerus of 508 men being stationed in Egypt + Zozimus.

I hope you using more than those two sources to make your conclusions. Is the figure of 508 men based on a modern interpretation, or does the papyrus list 508 men?

Evan wrote:
Obviously its not 480 or 560 men, as the former is too small and the latter would be an odd number of centuries, which the Romans didn't seem to like.

I have read (modern sources) that state the Romans liked odd numbers because they were considered lucky and even numbers were unlucky. As the whole Roman military system is based on even numbers, I am not sure how modern historians have arrived at their conclusion.

Evan wrote:
Also that would equal 79% strength if the Numerus numbered 659 men (640+officers), which is about right based on 3rd century papyrii from Dura Europos which show its operational strength to vary between 70 and 80%.

Using terms such as “if” is not very scientific. Why are you limiting your research to a few sources? If you compiled all the empirical data in the primary sources and leave out papyri, and then place the empirical data on a white board categorised into infantry, cavalry and unknown, over time likely mathematical patterns will emerge.

Evan wrote:
So a strength of 640 men seems to make sense. I presume its 6 centuries of dedicated infantry and possibly 2 centuries of dedicated archers.

So maniples are not part of the equation?

Evan wrote:
However, this doesn't take into account a possible integral cavalry element, if so then the Numerus could be 480 men + a few cavalry turmae, and that's a whole different ballgame.

Ah, the little red-herrings of the Roman military. Looking at some papyri material I have come to the conclusion an ala for the Late Roman cavalry contains a ratio of lancarii cavalry, so I am going with both light and heavy cavalry in an ala. Here I mean an ala that is on the same roll as the infantry (Vegetius). The ratio of light to heavy cavalry works out to be the same as the ratio of light to heavy infantry in a Late Roman legion. So when vexillations are formed, the vexillation or cohort(s) have the appropriate number of cavalry.

[Nathan Ross]

even numbers were unlucky... I am not sure how modern historians have arrived at their conclusion.

See Plutarch, Roman Questions, XXV, 30-40 on the imperfection of even numbers. Also Pliny, Natural History 28.5.27 on even numbers of diners being 'dangerous'. I'm sure there's more elsewhere.

empirical data

You keep using this expression. Surely numbers quoted in ancient sources cannot be empirical, as they are not demonstrably based on experience or observation, cannot be measured and cannot be independently verified?

[antiochus]

Nathan wrote:
See Plutarch, Roman Questions, XXV, 30-40 on the imperfection of even numbers. Also Pliny, Natural History 28.5.27 on even numbers of diners being 'dangerous'. I'm sure there's more elsewhere.

Yes, there’s quite a lot more about even and odd numbers. However, many of the discussions on the imperfection of numbers are in relation to mathematics or the division of numbers (Euclid etc). The superstitious elements, however is in contradiction with the military consisting of even and odd numbers. Does a legionary in the sixth century of the fourth cohort believe his cohort is unlucky because it is an even number? Where there is contradiction, there is another story waiting to be told.

Nathan wrote:
You keep using this expression. Surely numbers quoted in ancient sources cannot be empirical, as they are not demonstrably based on experience or observation, cannot be measured and cannot be independently verified?

Well I’m not alone in using that term. Pops in some academic works I have read. Is this going to be another “what is a primary source debate?”

[Flavivs Aetivs]

You raise some good points Antiochus, and yes in this case the Justinianic papyrus is accurate, as IIRC it does list what the number is rather than pay rations.

However, even if it listed pay rations that would be fine, because unlike the Elephantine Papyrii from Diocletian's time where we have to extrapolate the numbers, in Justinian's time we have lists of soldier's stipends and pay, meaning any estimate based on them would be far more accurate for a 6th century Papyrus.