Contubernium - Exactly How Many?

[D B Campbell]

... James Crow ... uses the 'chalet' expression ...

Basically, Charles Daniels noticed that the late barracks at Wallsend, Housesteads, Greatchesters and High Rochester appeared to be rows of detached rooms, which he christened "chalets".

In his English Heritage book on Housesteads (London: Batsford, 1995), Jim Crow maintained this position. However, his argument relies on Daniels' work at Wallsend, which was reinterpreted by Paul Bidwell in 1989/91.

The "chalet" theory relies on the individual barrack cubicles having their own constructional history, independent of the surrounding cubicles. For example, Crow writes: "Each chalet displays an independent, if related, building history with its neighbours. Some have stone walls with doors set between wood jambs facing on to the street, while others have timber fronts and retain the evidence for wooden partitions. These differences represent individual choices, as if the occupants of each dwelling constituted a separate group" (Housesteads, p. 87). He then suggests a "privatisation" scenario, where the individual occupants have responsibility for the maintenance of their own cubicle. And offers the classic "chalet" theory as an alternative, whereby each cubicle represents a family unit.

As noted previously, the evidence from Wallsend that sparked off the whole debate has now been reinterpreted, and perfectly good examples of 3rd/4th C barrack blocks are now known from Vindolanda (3rd C) and South Shields (4th C), albeit of reduced capacity. The Housesteads evidence can now be explained as a poorly constructed barrack block of the reduced variety: a centurion's room, six barrack rooms, and a store.

Of course, as we're dealing with archaeological evidence, we can never be 100% certain.

[Mithras]

So the word 'chalet' is associated with that 'family occupation' theory...and not the stand-alone nature of the buildings.

The trend is for lots of very different rebuilding of 4thc barracks?

[D B Campbell]

I think the chalet may be a red herring for you, Paul.

You're interested in 4th C barracks, so rather than looking at one of the older sites like Housesteads or High Rochester, where the evidence is not clear cut, you'd be better looking at South Shields, where the 4th C remains were examined in the 1980s.

Here, the fort was replanned at the turn of the 4th C -- the excavator suggests a timeframe of AD 286-318 -- and remained in occupation until ca. AD 370. A barrack dating from this period can be seen in the E quadrant of the fort, beside the 'courtyard house' -- see the plan here -- and another nine fill the retentura.
All have five contubernia of standard size, implying perhaps 40 men per barrack (although the excavator prefers 30). The full complement of ten barrack blocks at South Shields gives an entire unit strength of 300-400 men (in theory).

Mathematically I'm struggling to squeeze 100 men into the barrack blocks designed for 80.

So you can see that we are talking about a different type of barrack block in the 4th C., with a reduced number of rooms (but still with a larger officer's room at one end). If contubernia really numbered 10 men, perhaps they were split between two rooms? This is something that probably cannot be decided archaeologically.

Perhaps our German colleagues have evidence that supports (or contradicts) the picture at South Shields?

[Mithras]

After lots of reading and re-reading I am pretty confident that squad sizes remained at 8 men during the 4th C. Vegetius strangely sticks to 10 man squads, but on the whole he does have some strange things to say.

An 8 man squad clears up the problems I was having, I didn't realise how important the study of barracks was, producing garrison sizes upon which frontier strengths are based.

[Robert Vermaat]

I understand (from secondary sources only ...) that the conturbernium of the Republic and Principate was based on 8 men. A tent or mess party sharing equipment and tools and living space together.

I understand that the earlier Republican contubernium numbered but 6 men and that this changed at some undifined point to 8. The number of men in a contubernium is also linked to the file and the depth of a unit.

But in the Late period, Vegeius and Maurice both state that there were 10 men to a contubernium.

Yes and no.
Yes, Vegetius reports the contubernium with 10 men (ERM II.8, 13), but I'm not so sure about Maurice, because the latter consistantly uses 16-strong files, subdivided into 8-man strong squads, and never comes up with 10-strong ones.

I don't know Maurice word for word, but I think he only mentions the decanus, not that he commanded 10 men, as Vegetius reported.

It has been suggested that Vegetius has taken his sources far too literally and went on to make his own conclusions. His 'century' was a 100 strong, hence a contubernium of 10, each under an officer called a decanus, leader of ten. But since a century was probably never a 100 strong, a contubernium of 8 would fit perfectly.
But Vegetius shows signs of misunderstanding his sources at other points (he seems to have mistaken the deployment within the cohort for deployment by cohorts), and I have a hard time taking him literally on this.

It makes sense from a centenarii point of view - centenarii are leaders of 100 in Vegetius times, and he also mentions a ducentenarius, leader of 200. 8 men per contubernium messes up the maths ...

NO!!!
Where does he mention that ducentenarius?
Vegetius mentions a ducenarius (ERM II.8 ) but that is clearly his own mistake again - he thinks that ducenarius refers to decenti (200). According to Milner (p. 40 n.6) this use by Vegetius is the result of false etymology.
The ducenarius was an existing NCO rank, found in vexillationes, auxilia and scholae but without any well-defined function. The origin of the rank may be linked to duces though.

This is exactly why I distrust Vegetius' ranks and description of the organisation of the Legion.

[Mithras]

Where does he mention that ducentenarius?
Vegetius mentions a ducenarius (ERM II.8) but that is clearly his own mistake again - he thinks that ducenarius refers to decenti (200). According to Milner (p. 40 n.6) this use by Vegetius is the result of false etymology.

Argh, sorry - my mistake, I've been staring at this computer all day ... I too distrust Vegetius, too many conflicting information, too many mistakes, too many confusions with past practice, current practice and 'should be' practice.

Maurice mentions dekarchs only in passing when referring to the 16/8 man squads as a squad deputy (it seems). The title of dekarch comes in when he touches on the 10 man squads of the cavalry arm.

I like the way you interpret V's misinterpretations, Robert!

[Robert Vermaat]

I like the way you interpret V's misinterpretations, Robert!

I just hope I don't misinterpret V's misinterpretations..
So when are you guys going to come over so we can have a serious chat about all this?

[Mithras]

So when are you guys going to come over so we can have a serious chat about all this?

Just send over a high ranking Roman officer who will conscript the lot of us into his scratch force, and march us to Dover at spear-point, our wives and children wailing in the distance..,.

[Arngrim]

This is based on my knowledge on the swedish army from Gustavus Adolphus to Charles XII;

Even a completely manned unit was under-strength because 10 percent of the men were always out of action due to sickness or injuries in peacetime

Surely the Roman army had similar problems? Maybe a contubernium had ten men each just to make sure that it had a "guaranteed" combat strength of eight when needed?

[adamparsons]

Hi all,
Intersting little debate you are having here. I was at a seminar all day on friday (lucky me ) with many roman specialists debating almost this exact the subject, and the most pertinent points that seemed to come out were..... theoretical strengths were neve actual ones and forts may or may not be very misleading in terms of space.

Many have already pointed out the discrepancy in unit number, and vindolandas tablets confirm this. If one thinks of any army in history up until recently, it rarely has is supposed number- British regiment battalions in the napoleonic wars were supposed to have 1000 men, but ended up with 400-600 in practice, I doubt the roman army was any different. Ever played Rome Total war on pc- you try keeping your armies with nice full units... Its almost impossible with a nice synthesised game, never mind in real life!!!

I suspect that as someone has said units may have fitted out a fort with what they "in theory" needed, and then when some men went out on guard duties/watchtowers/patrol etc the extra space was filled by others and/or detachments of different units.

Andrew Birley from Vindolanda was saying that they have a tablet that refers to "cottages" owned by the unit in the town. He seems to think the commander may have made a profit off these (intersting idea all by itself!), but who's to say they weren't also used for extra troops, or units attached the garrison, or even irregulars?

This doesn't render pointless all the hard research you have all clearly been doing on the literary sources, quite the opposite! But it is worth reiterating these numbers were probably only ever theory and you would probably hard pressed to find an imperial century actually with 80 men. I imagine this was always the case in the roman army whether it be 100BC or 450AD!

cheers all
Adam

[Robert Vermaat]

Even a completely manned unit was under-strength because 10 percent of the men were always out of action due to sickness or injuries in peacetime
Surely the Roman army had similar problems? Maybe a contubernium had ten men each just to make sure that it had a "guaranteed" combat strength of eight when needed?

I'm sure your figures are OK, but we aren't talking actual strenght here, but army organisation. That means even if the actual strenght is way below 100%, the ranks are still 4 to 8 deep and the column still marches 4 abreast. Meaning, for the discussion of the number in a contubernium it makes no difference - the intended strenght is what we're after, not the actual one which would indeed have varied from time to time.
Sick leave, deaths, away missions, etc. would surely have meant there was room in a tent once in a while. But the ranks would still be 4 deep, even if the frontline became shorter..

Many have already pointed out the discrepancy in unit number, and vindolandas tablets confirm this. If one thinks of any army in history up until recently, it rarely has is supposed number- British regiment battalions in the napoleonic wars were supposed to have 1000 men, but ended up with 400-600 in practice, I doubt the roman army was any different. Ever played Rome Total war on pc- you try keeping your armies with nice full units... Its almost impossible with a nice synthesised game, never mind in real life!!!

Sure, I agree with that, but see above, we're discussion the organisation here. Numbers will have varied, possibly never raching a 100%, but the organisation of the army and the battle tactics are based on that smallest tactical unit, the contubernium.

I suspect that as someone has said units may have fitted out a fort with what they "in theory" needed, and then when some men went out on guard duties/watchtowers/patrol etc the extra space was filled by others and/or detachments of different units.

I doubt that the maximum space was intended for a larger number, taking into account that some men would be outside for any reason. I would mean that if the space was needed, not all of them would fit inside. This sounds more like a way of space management for a submarine... Surely, a rotation sytem or men from totally different units would not be housed on a rotation sytem - how about their personal items?

Andrew Birley from Vindolanda was saying that they have a tablet that refers to "cottages" owned by the unit in the town. He seems to think the commander may have made a profit off these (intersting idea all by itself!), but who's to say they weren't also used for extra troops, or units attached the garrison, or even irregulars?

Indeed interesting, but without any evidence to back up either theory my gut feeling tells me this would be more in the way of private ownership (or collective ownership of the unit?) to generate some extra income?

[adamparsons]

Andrew Birley from Vindolanda was saying that they have a tablet that refers to "cottages" owned by the unit in the town. He seems to think the commander may have made a profit off these (intersting idea all by itself!), but who's to say they weren't also used for extra troops, or units attached the garrison, or even irregulars?

Indeed interesting, but without any evidence to back up either theory my gut feeling tells me this would be more in the way of private ownership (or collective ownership of the unit?) to generate some extra income?

In part answer to your query and/or supplementation- Andrew was saying that there is also a tablet which refers to the "units/regiments" profits, though sure it most probably is the commanders way of creaming off a profit. I have recently been working with Vivien Swan who has done a lot of work on North African pottery in York and Carlisle who is finding that this distinctive pottery type is occurring in and out of the forts in Carlisle, suggesting troops occupying both areas, and this is true of Vindolanda. (though this is Severan in date) this is culturally very specific eating paraphenalia, not adopted locally, and together with the specific use of clay bonding in stone walls as opposed to mortar used by other units this points to these troops and/or families specifically. This is not surprising to me finding men both in the town and fort, but could perhaps help to put together an argument for troops and/or families of such garrisoning/occupying the town as an official and/or unofficial overspill. You may say "oh the town is just the 'illegal wives'", but why therefore do the find similar artefact assemblages (including childrens shoes etc, both in the barracks and the town buldings "used" as barracks? Surely if the familes were the ones in the town, they would have been kept out of the barrack largely?

Your points about a rotation system and "personal" ornaments are well made, and I suspect very valid. My suggestion was a little confusing and not well put reading it back, but basically the problems is that units theorectical strength changed from time to time such as at Vindolanda. This despite rebuilds makes it hard to fit men into the barracks built, and given clearly that there would be additional men attached and servants and slaves attached, often the numbers don't fit in the forts in theory or practice. As after AD 105 when the 1st cohort of Tungrians returns to Vindolanda about 1000 strong (being 500 strong in 84/85) with a cavalry detachment and legionaries? where did these go? sure the fort was bigger but not that big?

Sure, I agree with that, but see above, we're discussion the organisation here. Numbers will have varied, possibly never raching a 100%, but the organisation of the army and the battle tactics are based on that smallest tactical unit, the contubernium.

Sorry I seemed to have dragged you off topic I though from reading it was generally about units strengths in theory and practice, I'll let you get back to that now! :oops:

But all I was trying to point out was that the above, plus all the other great tablets from vindolanda showing odd unit sizes (I'll dig some examples out tonight) seem to point to the fact that a unit swelled beyond size and below its size. This could mean a contubernium may well have had MORE men, it would not stop the unit deploying 4 ranks deep by XX as you say, but the napoleonic british army was supposed to deploy 3-4 deep, but often would deploy any where from 5 to 2 in practice! So in answer to Pauls very first question I think that a barracks was built in the standard pattern, and later as slightly more irregular pattern, and if units were bigger or smaller they were squashed in or barracked elsewhere?

Cheers
Adam

P.S you think a contubernium is cramped, as a colleague of mine pointed out- you want to look a housing in industrial revolution era britain and ireland!

[Vincula]

But in the Late period, Vegeius and Maurice both state that there were 10 men to a contubernium.

Just a thought, but arent they talking about a legionary contubernium? So far your all talking about auxiliary forts. Doh! :roll:

[Robert Vermaat]

Since the contubernium as smallest tactical unit would be the same for auxilia as for legions, why would that matter?

[adamparsons]

Absolutely, as far as fort layouts go in the imperial period there is no difference between a legionary barrack and an auxilliary one that is clear to see? I'm sure this is the same later too