05-29-2017, 02:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-29-2017, 02:53 PM by Marcel Frederik Schwarze.)
So, the answers from Stefan Zehetner regarding the raised question:
Question/Statement: [...] A conclusion obviously reached because Vegetius does not list the triarius posterior in his first cohort. [...]
ad 1) Vegetius does not list a triarius posterior, but in fact, he lists two primi pilus. In his listing, the primi ordines from top to bottom are: primus pilus, primus hastatus, princeps primae cohortis, secundus hastatus and triarius prior. In fact the triarius prior is equivalent to primus pilus. But as CIL VIII 18072 indicates, the listing of Vegetius is not right or has misinterpreted his sources.
Question/Statement: [...] Spurnius Lingustinus was selected as centurion of the tenth hastatus ordo. That is important and should not be left out. [...]
ad 2) Spurnius Lingustinus is in fact listed in the tenth ordo of hastati. But in Republican times the term "ordo" is to understand as "manipulus" as this was the organizational subunit of a legion. As Spurnius Lingustinus was enlisted as centurion for the first time in this case, we have to believe, that he was not the leading centurion of the maniple and therefore was a subaltern centurio posterior.
Question/Statement: [...] No it is not the tenth maniple, Livy states the 10th ordo, and had Spurnius Lingustinus been in charge of the 10th ordo during the principate he would have had the title of centurion ordinarius. [...]
ad 3) same as "ad 2)" + The term "ordinarius" is used for the term "centurio" in the third century AD. A centurio ordinarius is not known in Republican times.
Question/Statement: [...] But later Stefan mentions that at Zama, Scipio Africanus grouped his legions in cohorts. [...]
ad 4) Scipio Africanus introduced the cohort for his military operations in Spain. That he also used this organization at Zama I am referring to the greek terminus "speira", which Polybios first used for manipulus, which he also calls "tagma" or "semaia". In his descriptions of Scipios military operations, he uses the term "speira" exclusively for the term "cohors". In imperial times the term "speira" is also used for "cohors", secured by papyrological sources.
Question/Statement: [...] 10 full cohorts each of 10 centuries will equal 100 centuries to a legion. [...] (this was related to the question whether a cohort could consist of 10 centuries)
ad 5) There is no proof, that all cohorts of a legion had 10 centuries. I am sure, it was possible, but a legion never was organized in such manners. There are even only few sources, which indicate a 10 centuries strong first cohort. (Or a 5 double-strengthended centuries first cohort.) What is to see is, that, if there was a strengthened first cohort, there were in fact as many centurions as there were centuries. A 10 centuries first cohort plus nine 6 centuries cohorts make 64 centuries throughout a legion. CIL VIII 18065 lists exactly 64 centurions (only one of these is an evocatus). Even Vegetius proofs this organization. His cohorts all were made up of 5 centuries, only the first was organized in 10 commanded by fife primi ordines. But Vegetius states, that there are 55 centurions in each legion. Ten in the first cohort and fife in each of the other nine cohorts. (Veg. Epitoma rei militaris II 8, 1-9.)
Question/Statement: [...] How about more investigation? How about throwing out the theory? ... How about instead of claiming the maniple was abolished by Marius, you work with the primary sources, and when they say maniple after the time of Marius, you go with it. ... The primary sources do not make the claim that Marius abolished the maniple [...]
ad 6) In fact the term "manipulus" was used in imperial times. But indicating old organizational charts, it was only used in literary sources, where they simply were used as stylistic devices. Primary sources do not indicate any manipuli in imperial times any longer. There are terms from the 2nd century AD calling "commanipularius" which stands for the comrade or the buddy. It is used aside the term "contubernalis". Some sources (SHA, Ammianus Marcellinus, Vegetius) claim, that the term "manipulus" was used for the "contubernium", the tent party. I am planing an essay on this terminus.
Not sure if all answers are satisfying, but I only give the answers as they were sent to me. From my side I have said everything.
Concerning the tent-question I want suggest to take a closer look at some illuminated manuscripts of the time in question, but also images of the late antiquity are quite interestig. There are some useful references, albeit a comparision is always difficult. παπυλεωνα appears indeed in several descriptions, and papilio or the papilium is also described by Hyginus ... ibid §1: Nunc papilonum tensionem cohortium; also shown by several images.
But rigde tents are also shown many times. I haven't compared the sizes of those tents yet, this could be very interesting.
Question/Statement: [...] A conclusion obviously reached because Vegetius does not list the triarius posterior in his first cohort. [...]
ad 1) Vegetius does not list a triarius posterior, but in fact, he lists two primi pilus. In his listing, the primi ordines from top to bottom are: primus pilus, primus hastatus, princeps primae cohortis, secundus hastatus and triarius prior. In fact the triarius prior is equivalent to primus pilus. But as CIL VIII 18072 indicates, the listing of Vegetius is not right or has misinterpreted his sources.
Question/Statement: [...] Spurnius Lingustinus was selected as centurion of the tenth hastatus ordo. That is important and should not be left out. [...]
ad 2) Spurnius Lingustinus is in fact listed in the tenth ordo of hastati. But in Republican times the term "ordo" is to understand as "manipulus" as this was the organizational subunit of a legion. As Spurnius Lingustinus was enlisted as centurion for the first time in this case, we have to believe, that he was not the leading centurion of the maniple and therefore was a subaltern centurio posterior.
Question/Statement: [...] No it is not the tenth maniple, Livy states the 10th ordo, and had Spurnius Lingustinus been in charge of the 10th ordo during the principate he would have had the title of centurion ordinarius. [...]
ad 3) same as "ad 2)" + The term "ordinarius" is used for the term "centurio" in the third century AD. A centurio ordinarius is not known in Republican times.
Question/Statement: [...] But later Stefan mentions that at Zama, Scipio Africanus grouped his legions in cohorts. [...]
ad 4) Scipio Africanus introduced the cohort for his military operations in Spain. That he also used this organization at Zama I am referring to the greek terminus "speira", which Polybios first used for manipulus, which he also calls "tagma" or "semaia". In his descriptions of Scipios military operations, he uses the term "speira" exclusively for the term "cohors". In imperial times the term "speira" is also used for "cohors", secured by papyrological sources.
Question/Statement: [...] 10 full cohorts each of 10 centuries will equal 100 centuries to a legion. [...] (this was related to the question whether a cohort could consist of 10 centuries)
ad 5) There is no proof, that all cohorts of a legion had 10 centuries. I am sure, it was possible, but a legion never was organized in such manners. There are even only few sources, which indicate a 10 centuries strong first cohort. (Or a 5 double-strengthended centuries first cohort.) What is to see is, that, if there was a strengthened first cohort, there were in fact as many centurions as there were centuries. A 10 centuries first cohort plus nine 6 centuries cohorts make 64 centuries throughout a legion. CIL VIII 18065 lists exactly 64 centurions (only one of these is an evocatus). Even Vegetius proofs this organization. His cohorts all were made up of 5 centuries, only the first was organized in 10 commanded by fife primi ordines. But Vegetius states, that there are 55 centurions in each legion. Ten in the first cohort and fife in each of the other nine cohorts. (Veg. Epitoma rei militaris II 8, 1-9.)
Question/Statement: [...] How about more investigation? How about throwing out the theory? ... How about instead of claiming the maniple was abolished by Marius, you work with the primary sources, and when they say maniple after the time of Marius, you go with it. ... The primary sources do not make the claim that Marius abolished the maniple [...]
ad 6) In fact the term "manipulus" was used in imperial times. But indicating old organizational charts, it was only used in literary sources, where they simply were used as stylistic devices. Primary sources do not indicate any manipuli in imperial times any longer. There are terms from the 2nd century AD calling "commanipularius" which stands for the comrade or the buddy. It is used aside the term "contubernalis". Some sources (SHA, Ammianus Marcellinus, Vegetius) claim, that the term "manipulus" was used for the "contubernium", the tent party. I am planing an essay on this terminus.
Not sure if all answers are satisfying, but I only give the answers as they were sent to me. From my side I have said everything.
Concerning the tent-question I want suggest to take a closer look at some illuminated manuscripts of the time in question, but also images of the late antiquity are quite interestig. There are some useful references, albeit a comparision is always difficult. παπυλεωνα appears indeed in several descriptions, and papilio or the papilium is also described by Hyginus ... ibid §1: Nunc papilonum tensionem cohortium; also shown by several images.
But rigde tents are also shown many times. I haven't compared the sizes of those tents yet, this could be very interesting.
