What would be the standard vexillation size?

[Steven James]

Frank wrote:
Scheuerbrandt analyzed the roman army extensively in his dissertation "Exercitus".
 
Where I have a problem with Scheuerbrandt is his investigation of the battle of Mons Graupius. Tacitus tells us there were 8,000 auxiliary infantry, 3,000 cavalry and an unknown number of Roman legionaries. Unless I am mistaken Scheuerbrandt concludes that there were 8,000 auxiliary infantry, 16,000 Romans (4 legions) and 5,000 cavalry for a total of 29,000 men. He has increased Tacitus’ 3,000 cavalry to 5,000 cavalry.
 
Personally I have found the period of the principate to be the most easily understood of any given period. The principate is the beginning of the bastard legions, because the Romans have deviated slightly from the Pythagorean system. In the original Pythagorean system, the legion should consist of 80 centuries each of 60 men and not 60 centuries each of 80 men.
 
For me the 8,000 auxiliary infantry at Mons Graupius is rounded but the 3,000 cavalry is correct. This is because, for this period I know what the size of Agricola’s bodyguard cavalry should be and when that is subtracted from the total, I have a perfect mathematical match that conforms to the cavalry organisation for this period. There is no fudging involved. I have the legionaries as consisting of vexillations, and not legions. My rational for this is if the first cohort was present, it is most likely the legion’s identity number would be mentioned, as Arrian has done in his work against the Alani.

As a vexillation consisted of 960 men (480 x 2), the figure of 1,000 men is rounded. Therefore, the figure of 2,000 men amounts to 1,920 men (480 x 4).

[Steven James]

As discussed in another posting, Livy (40 27 3) also mentions four cohorts of extraordinarii (extraordinariis cohortibus) assembled at the praetorian gate.
 
The four cohorts make two vexillations. I have found other references to vexillations being termed a cohort, and it is a common practice among ancient historians. So when you encounter cohorts with differing numbers of men, reflect for awhile that it could relate to another organisation being discussed and not necessarily a cohort.

[LonginusXXI]

For the year 54 AD, Tacitus (Annals 14 26) mentions that a Roman garrison consisted of 1,000 legionaries, three allied cohorts, and two squadrons of cavalry.
 
Tacitus (The Annals 15 10) reports that the Roman commander Corbulo ordered 1,000 men from each of his three legions to be in instant readiness.
 
Suetonius (Life of Vespasian 6 2) writes that 2,000 soldiers were taken from three legions stationed in Moesia and sent to help the Roman commander Otho. In this incident it could be that men were taken from the three legions to form two vexillations each of 1,000 men.
 
The inscription to Pontius Sabinus (CIL 10, 5829) mentions vexillations sent on an expedition to Britain amounting to three thousand men taken from three legions VII Gemina, VIII Augusta and XXII Primigenia.
 
A mathematical pattern in divisions of 1,000 men emerges.

So what about equestrian provinces during the first century A.D?

[Nathan Ross]

I have found other references to vexillations being termed a cohort, and it is a common practice among ancient historians.

If the vexillation consisted of a single cohort that would make sense. What references are you using?

As a vexillation consisted of 960 men (480 x 2), the figure of 1,000 men is rounded.

While many vexillations do seem to have been c.1000 men, and/or two cohorts, the differences in both purpose and command of vexillations suggest they were of variable size. We have one inscription to a pair of vexillations commanded by a centurion of frumentarii building a 200-ft stretch of city wall at Salona, others to vexillations repairing buildings around Hadrian's Wall, another to a vexillation of a single legion commanded by a tribune and a centurion. It would seem very unlikely that all these detachments were same size, or numbered 960 men each. Vexillations sent on active service to join a campaign army would be different to those detached as garrisons or to do construction work, but both use the same name.

I have the legionaries as consisting of vexillations, and not legions.

Quite possible - Tacitus has Agricola take 'his stand on foot before the standards' (ante vexilla) rather than before the eagles (Agricola 1.35).

However, usual practice was for the legionary force to equal the number of the auxiliaries. So if Agricola had 8000 auxiliary infantry and 3000 cavalry, his legionary strength should have been c.11,000 men. If he had four legions available, but no full legions present at the battle, each vexillation must have numbered between two and three thousand men...

[Steven James]

James Ajiduah wrote:
So what about equestrian provinces during the first century A.D?
 
I have no idea. My research is focused on the organisation of the legion from 753 BC to 410 AD, which has five vexillations. How they distributed them among the provinces is not my area of interest.
 
Nathan wrote:
If the vexillation consisted of a single cohort that would make sense. What references are you using?
 
I did not say a vexillation consisted of one cohort. I wrote “I have found other references to vexillations being termed a cohort, and it is a common practice among ancient historians.”
 
Nathan wrote:
While many vexillations do seem to have been c.1000 men, and/or two cohorts, the differences in both purpose and command of vexillations suggest they were of variable size.... It would seem very unlikely that all these detachments were same size, or numbered 960 men each.
 
In a previous posting I showed the numbers for vexillations being of variable size and the reason why, so we are in agreement.
 
Nathan wrote:
Vexillations sent on active service to join a campaign army would be different to those detached as garrisons or to do construction work, but both use the same name.
 
I have stated before that a detachment varying in size can be termed a vexillation by a ancient historian. Sulla is mentioned as having three cohorts in reserve, this does not mean a legion did not have ten cohorts.
 
Nathan wrote:
However, usual practice was for the legionary force to equal the number of the auxiliaries. So if Agricola had 8000 auxiliary infantry and 3000 cavalry, his legionary strength should have been c.11,000 men. If he had four legions available, but no full legions present at the battle, each vexillation must have numbered between two and three thousand men...
 
Again, I am in agreement.

[Nathan Ross]

I did not say a vexillation consisted of one cohort. I wrote “I have found other references to vexillations being termed a cohort, and it is a common practice among ancient historians.”

I still don't understand what you mean, I'm afraid. Are these references to vexillations (plural) being termed a cohort (singular)? If a single vexillation is also referred to as a cohort then, as I say above, it would suggest that it was cohort sized...

Perhaps you give a couple of examples of these references?

[Steven James]

[quote pid='334258' dateline='1457593182']
Nathan Ross
I still don't understand what you mean, I'm afraid. Are these references to vexillations (plural) being termed a cohort (singular)? If a single vexillation is also referred to as a cohort then, as I say above, it would suggest that it was cohort sized...

Perhaps you give a couple of examples of these references?
[/quote]

 
Livy (40 27 3) mentions four cohorts of extraordinarii (extraordinariis cohortibus) assembled at the praetorian gate.
 
There is an earlier reference mentioning two cohorts and the total number of men, which I know works out to be two vexillations. If I provide the references, then I would be asked to explain more. This would mean I would have to provide the legion size, which the primary sources provide, and then how it all works. Basically all I do is give more of my hard achieved research away, and for what? When I provide numbers and how they work they are ignored. Everyone moves around then like they don’t exist. I believe I have provided sufficient examples of legions being organised into five vexillations, also breakdown examples of the 1,600 vexellarii of Hyginus and the references to 3,000 and 4,000 man legions. Returning to the extraodinarii being as Polybius claims one fifth of the allied infantry, as two allied legions in a consular army amount to twenty cohorts, one fifth would amount to four cohorts, and this leaves us with Livy telling us that four cohorts of extraodinarii protected the praetorian gate. And let’s not forget in this posting I mentioned the five legion standards as mentioned by Pliny. Using basic arithmetic, when 10 cohorts are divided by 5 standards each standard is allocated two cohorts. When does it stop being coincidence? Would someone like to answer that question?
 
I don’t pull rabbits out of my hat lightly. I sat on the possibility of a legion having five vexillations for years. However, from every period of the legion’s history there was enough data confirming that five vexillations to a legion was standard practice for 1,000 years, like there are cohorts, maniples and centuries.
 
One response I always receive from those who have read all my research, and it comes as a surprise to them was how formulaic the Romans were. In his paper “The Order of Battle in the Roman Army: The Marching Camps,” Richard Anderson wrote: “The ratio 2/3 occurs in many aspects of Roman military organisation and was probably due to Pythagorean influences.”
 
Anderson is right about the Pythagorean influence and I take my hat off to him, but the ratio for the military organisation is not 2/3 but 3/2 (the Pythagorean perfect fifth), and that is why there are five vexillations. Anderson is using the Pythagorean ratio in its descending order. The Romans created 21 tribes, waited for over 100 years then began the process of creating the remaining 14 tribes. Now when the 21 tribes and the 14 tribes are appropriated to the hebdomad system (divisions of seven) the 21 tribes = 3 and the 14 tribes equal 2, therefore the ratio 3/2. The whole Roman system, both social and military is strictly formulated on the 3/2 ratio. Roman time is based on the other Pythagorean ratio 4/3 (the perfect fourth). And why are there two cohorts to a vexillation? According to Varro the Pythagoreans upheld the principal of “all things being in pairs.” Maybe that could explain why the remaining 14 tribes were created in pairs. Who would be brave to call it coincidence?

[Nathan Ross]

Livy (40 27 3) mentions four cohorts of extraordinarii (extraordinariis cohortibus) assembled at the praetorian gate.

But I don't think he mentions vexillations. Quattuor extraordinariis cohortibus duas adiunxit praeposito M. Valerio legato, erumpere praetoria porta iussit. Four cohorts is just four cohorts. Caesar also mentions cohorts apparently operating in this way, but doesn't call them vexillations either.

from every period of the legion’s history there was enough data confirming that five vexillations to a legion was standard practice for 1,000 years, like there are cohorts, maniples and centuries.

I can understand if you don't want to discuss this any further - I believe you've set out your ideas several times already. But I'm still not sure where you're drawing this from. Aside from the reference to the vexillum in Livy's description of the army of the 4th C BC - a division of the third line of the manipular legion, numbering 62 men - I don't know of any suggestions that a vexillum or vexillation was a part of the standard internal organisation of the entire legion. The term seems reserved for detached units of varying sizes. There are the vexillarii mentioned by Tacitus and Hyginus, but these seem to have been time-served veterans remaining with the legion, rather than men belonging to a legion divided into five parts. Do you know of any references to a legion of the imperial era internally divided in this way?

[Steven James]

Nathan, I went away and thought about your comments. It made me question whether the two cohort organisation had a different name from vexillation but was referred to as a vexillation when detached from the legion.
 
Well that created a eureka moment or major epiphany. I have a small collection left of research I cannot find a home for in the book. One of those items held the clue to what the two cohort organisation would be termed. I did the maths in relation to the Pythagorean system and it a perfect match for over 1,000 years. Also the entomology of the word as found in the primary sources categorically confirms it. For the Romans, any grouping of maniples can legally be called a cohort. As with the rest of my research, I have found the Romans lack nouns for the various cohort organisations within a legion.
 
I am changing the term vexillation to signa cohort of signum cohort. A signa can mean a standard, banner or ensign. However, the word signa can also mean an orbis, the zodiac, a group of stars or constellation. As the size of a cohort is determined by the movement of the Pythagorean zodiac, I believe I am on safe ground.
 
Thanks for changing my way of thinking regarding the vexillation.

[Renatus]

I am changing the term vexillation to signa cohort of signum cohort.

'Signa cohort' or 'signum cohort' seem to be awkward combinations of Latin and English nouns and I don't see how they would work in a sentence. Did you find the expression in one of your sources or is it a term that you have coined to describe the two cohort organisation that you have mentioned?

[Steven James]

Renatus wrote:
'Signa cohort' or 'signum cohort' seem to be awkward combinations of Latin and English nouns and I don't see how they would work in a sentence. Did you find the expression in one of your sources or is it a term that you have coined to describe the two cohort organisation that you have mentioned?
 
It’s a working title I coined so as to not cause confusion for me when writing. Not sure what term to use. A signa can also refer to a orbis or group of zodiacs, which got my interest.As two senators commanded the cohort, maybe “senatorial cohort.” However, I am questioning whether Dionysius and Livy have used the size of a cohort in their day (480 men) for the legion of 460 BC, which should be organised into cohorts of 240 men. So using 480 man cohorts, Dionysius and Livy would end up with five cohorts each of 480 men under the command of two senators. Now if two senators commanded a 240 man cohort, then each  senator commands a maniple. According to Polybius, the senior  centurion commands the maniple, so I think Dionysius and Livy are basing their calculations on 480 man cohorts. I'm putting stress on the five part legion organisation to see if it holds up.
 
However, the five part organisation of the legion works for my numeri organisation for the late Roman legion. So it all looks good on paper but does that mean it is right and is there such a thing as a standard numeri organisation.