Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Late Roman Army - seniores and iuniores
#30
Renatus wrote:

Oh, Steven! Were all my efforts in vain?
 
Sorry, I rushed that last posting and did not think to refer to your invaluable guide.
 
Nathan wrote:
We've discussed the maniple issue before, of course. I don't think anybody's 'discarding evidence' - it's just that the evidence we have isn't conclusive enough to allow for a firm enough interpretation: Ammianus mentions them, in what could be a stock phrase, but also says the Persians had them.
 
I have been flicking through a thesis “Roman light infantry and the Art of Combat,” in which the author dismisses all reference to cohorts before 210 BC as being anachronistic, with no evidence provided to support his claim. So the end result is he has blocked his path to discovery and will arrive at the same conclusions as every other historian who chooses this same path to travel down.
 
In regard to Persian maniples, Livy also refers to the Carthaginians as being in maniples. I don’t have a problem with this as I believe both Ammianus and Livy are describing Persian and Carthaginian units as being similar in size to a Roman maniple. So if a Carthaginian unit was organised into centuries of 100 men and a Roman maniple has 120 men, I guess Ammianus and Livy thought close enough is good enough.
 
Nathan wrote:
Vegetius mentions them, but claims they were 10 men strong...That hasn't stopped some scholars (Janniard for one) from suggesting a manipular reorganisation of the later legion.
 
I believe the ten man maniple belongs to the period of centuriate legion in which a century was organised into ten maniples each of ten men. For me, it belongs to the pre Pythagorean reform. Livy writes that Tarquinius Superbus mistrusting his Latin allies decided to organise the Roman army into maniples consisting of one Roman century and one Latin century, with both centuries under the command of a Roman centurion. This is the reform of the maniple with two centuries now making a maniple. You cannot make a ten man maniple have two centuries of five men, which Varro claims was a manus.
 
Nathan wrote:
A vexillation is a detachment, so it's unlikely that a legion was organised into vexillations. Vexillations might have been organised into cohorts, but that's different.
 
I stand by my research that a legion was organised into vexillations (five), with a vexillation consisting of two cohorts. I would say when required, a vexillation can be created from choosing maniples from various legions that then formed two cohorts or one vexillation. The system has to be flexible. The size of a vexillation can also vary especially if the pilani are not included. An example of this is Hyginus’ 1,600 vexillari. Hyginus equates a century as consisting of 80 men, so if we remove one century of pilani from a cohort of 480 men, Hyginus 1,600 vexillari represents four cohorts each of 400 men. Now following my premise a vexillation equates to two cohorts, the 1,600 vexillari represents two vexillations. Please do not hesitate to tell me where I am in error.
 
If you remove one century of pilani from each cohort, the legion is reduced to 4,000 men. When crossing the Rhine in 14 AD, the army of Germanicus consisted of 12,000 legionaries (arma), twenty six cohorts of auxiliary (socii) and eight alae of cavalry. (Tacitus The Annals 1 49 4) The 12,000 legionaries could represent three legions each of 4,000 men.
 
In (?) AD, Marcus Trebellius subdued the Clitae tribe at Mount Taurus in Cappadocia with 4,000 legionaries and some picked auxiliaries. (Tacitus The Annals 6 41)
 
In 35 AD, the legate Marcus Trebillius, with 4,000 legionaries and a picked force of auxiliaries are reported to have suppressed a revolt in Cappadocia. (Tacitus The Annals 6 41 1)
 
In all three references, could it be that a legion of 4,000 men equates to the removal of 800 pilani (ten centuries) from each cohort? This would mean a vexillation amounted to 800 men. Again please do not hesitate to correct me if I am in error.
 
In ? AD, while campaigning against the Tiridates in Armenia, when both opposing commanders met for a parley, the Roman commander Corbulo posted his allied infantry and auxiliaries on the wings, with the sixth legion in the centre. The sixth legion had been reinforced during the night with 3,000 men from the third legion summoned from another camp during the night to give the appearance the sixth legion looked like a single legion with one eagle. (Tacitus Annals 13 38) Tacitus reports the Roman commander Corbulo had divided his strength and set up camps at widely separate points. Could it be that the sixth legion possibly numbered only 1,600 pilani acting as garrison troops for the camp, which had to be reinforced by 3,200 men from the third legion, which has been rounded from 3200 men (1,600 hastati and 1,600 principes)?
 
In 67 AD, to suppress an uprising Vespasian sent Cerealius, the commander of the fifth legion with a force of 3,000 infantry and 600 cavalry. (Josephus (The Jewish War 3 32) Could it be that the 3,000 infantry of the fifth legion has been rounded from 3,200 infantry (twenty maniples) with the 1,600 pilani (10 maniples) remaining behind to act as garrison troops? This would mean a vexillation amounted to 640 men. Again, please do not hesitate to correct me if I am in error.
 
Nathan wrote:
The earliest evidence we have for seniores/iuniores dates from AD356, which is some time after Constantine. Sources for the period immediately before that are scanty, so the new titles may have come in before then, but it's interesting that Ammianus does not mention them in his account of Argentorate (at the same date as the inscription above!). He does mention them in relation to the revolt of Procopius some years later though. Another example of Marcellinian omision, perhaps (he was writing an historical narrative, not a military report), or a suggestion that these new titles were not applied across the entire army at the same time?
 
I do not have the answer to why units would be called seniores. Once it meant those above the military age, whose main role was to garrison the walls of Rome. The seniores also did not vote. I wouldn’t think that units termed seniores would be applied in a derogative manner. Every time I investigate this, I am always pulled back to the seniores in the tribal system being one fifth of the iuniores, and why are their numbers in the tribe now included in the overall calculation which determines the size of the Roman legion. Could the first vexillation of each legion be the seniores? I have no idea. I once thought the seniores and the triarius could be one and the same thing, but have ruled that out.
 
I once tried to count the number of iuniores units to seniores units in the ND to see if I could find a relationship with the ratio with the ratio of iuniores and seniores in the tribal system, but the translation of the ND I used was not clear on identifying some units as iuniores or seniores. This could be the way the ND was written. So I could not come to any conclusion. I prefer to crunch numbers, which I find to be more tangible.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Late Roman Army - seniores and iuniores - by Steven James - 03-04-2016, 03:50 AM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Late Roman Army during the 5th century Robert Vermaat 89 17,315 01-11-2024, 04:34 PM
Last Post: Magister_Officiorum13241
  Late Roman Army Ranks - Numeri/Limitanei jmsilvacross 14 1,743 11-17-2021, 01:42 PM
Last Post: Steven James
  Seniores and Iuniores (again) Colonel Chabert 23 3,432 01-09-2021, 12:42 AM
Last Post: Nathan Ross

Forum Jump: