Did the contubernium really have two extra men

[musterion]

I've been looking at various YouTube videos to find one to send to a friend in order to show the structure of the 1st Century AD Legion.  Several times I have run across the concept that a contubernium had 2 extra slaves or helpers.  From what I can discern this is done by the writers of the video or article in order to bring up the count of a century to 100 men.  Witness the Wikipedia article:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contubernium.  I guess it bothers some people that a century had only 80 men, although it may have had 100 in early republican times.  I understand that the century was not named for the number of men in it, but from where it where taken in the organization of Rome.  It make no sense to me from a logistical perspective to have two extra mouths to feed as well.

Can anyone shed light on this?

[Robert Vermaat]

I've been looking at various YouTube videos to find one to send to a friend in order to show the structure of the 1st Century AD Legion.  Several times I have run across the concept that a contubernium had 2 extra slaves or helpers.  From what I can discern this is done by the writers of the video or article in order to bring up the count of a century to 100 men.  Witness the Wikipedia article:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contubernium.  I guess it bothers some people that a century had only 80 men, although it may have had 100 in early republican times.  I understand that the century was not named for the number of men in it, but from where it where taken in the organization of Rome.  It make no sense to me from a logistical perspective to have two extra mouths to feed as well.

Can anyone shed light on this?

Vegetius is a source for the 10-men contubernium, but even he had 10 soldiers in mind. Adding 2 slaves would not count for unit strength so that hypothesis is a sure failure.
Which does not mean that slaves were not present (and fed) in a contubernium of course. Only that they did not exist in the army organisation.

[Nathan Ross]

Vegetius is a source for the 10-men contubernium, but even he had 10 soldiers in mind.

Vegetius is a bit unclear, I think - he does say 'the centuries were divided into ten-man contubernia', but then that each 'had one man in charge as decanus, now called caput contubernii' (II.13). Earlier (II.8), he mentions that these decani were 'in charge of ten soldiers each' - so they were not counted, it seems, among the ten.

In the following section (II.14) he tells us that '110 infantrymen are controlled by one centurion under one standard'. So it appears that he regarded the century as 110 men, divided into ten contubernia of 11 men each, including the 'decanus'.

The only source for the 80-man century is Hyginus (early 2nd century?) - and elsewhere he seems to imply that the numbers are different for auxiliaries (?). Tacitus gives 60 men at one point for a centurion's command in the early empire, and Josephus can be read that way too...

So it's not as clear as all that! As for the extra slaves - yes, as far as I know there is no evidence for two slaves being attached to each contubernium, and even if they were, these men would not be counted 'on the strength'. There's plenty of evidence for slaves, or army servants (calones) being attached to legions - centurions seem to have had a number of slaves to attend them - but nothing about a set amount or allocation.

[Renatus]

as far as I know there is no evidence for two slaves being attached to each contubernium, and even if they were, these men would not be counted 'on the strength'. There's plenty of evidence for slaves, or army servants (calones) being attached to legions

The idea may arise from Jonathan P. Roth, The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 B.C. - A.D. 235) (Leiden: Brill, 1999), p.114.  Having reviewed the evidence for slaves in the Roman Army, Roth postulates a combatant/non-combatant ratio of 4:1 as being reasonable and goes on to say that this would mean 1200 calones for a 4800-man legion, i.e., 120 military slaves per cohort, 20 per century and 2 per contubernium.  He states, however, that these are merely estimates and, as I read him, does not claim that the slaves were on the strength of the unit.