Contubernium - Exactly How Many?

[Mithras]

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 reconstructions of 8 men sharing the barrack rooms have also been made (I've seen the barracks at Arbeia near Newcastle).

But in the Late period, Vegeius and Maurice both state that there were 10 men to a contubernium. Makes sense to me, BUT. What do you think happened to those living spaces that were, very literally 'set in stone'. We are talking 4.6 square metres per contubernium. Can you get 2 more men into those barrack rooms? What do you think, realistically, went on? I know there were significant reductions in manpower during this period. Did that help?

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

Sorry to ask questions. So many questions ... :lol:

[Carlton Bach]

Were they set in stone? Given that we have evidence of forts being significantly rebuilt, new smaller 'burgi' going up with heavy fortification, and artifacts pointing at civilians and families inside the walls of late period fortifications I wonder how well our assumptions of their use from the Principate reflect the living reality of the 4th or 6th century. Does anyone know of any fort in continued use that was excavated with attention being paid to these issues? Usually, what I find is 'first built - then built in stone - then used until' with very little mention of later changes. I suspect that a lot of ad-hoc renovation was possible especially in timber-framed buildings on stone foundations.

That said, I wonder how well our assumptions about the living arrangements of Principate soldiers reflect reality. Do we *know* these blocks were single-storey? REcently, archeologists excavated a villa collapsed in an earthquake and were quite astonished that, on standard Roman foundations, they had five meters of wall in a *barn*. Surely room enough for a mezzanine. Can we even be sure all men technically in a contubernium would be expected to sleep in their barracks block (assuming they were in the fort at the time)? Where did they put soldiers from other units, if any?

Ach, questions are like tribbles, Captain. Ye start with one, and ye end with hundreds!

[Nathan Ross]

I believe that, around the end of the third century, probably when army structure was changing, the 'classic' arrangement of barrack blocks within a Roman fort changed as well. The regular rows of standard-sized rooms are replaced by more irregular 'chalet style' accomodation - which phrase rather suggests a military Butlins, but I don't know of a better one!

As far as I know, the old stone and wood barrack blocks seem to have been either demolished or the internal walls knocked through to make larger rooms. The best example of this that I've seen is the plan of the fort at Bremenium (High Rochester), as excavated in the 1850s. The plan is reproduced in De la Bedoyere's 'Eagles Over Britannia', amongst other places, and shows the regular spaces of the fort filled with a hodgepotch of odd-sized buildings. More recent geophysical surveys of the fort have discovered the more usual rectangular parallel barrack blocks underlying the later 'chalets'.

- Nathan

[Mithras]

Its all this daily-life stuff, day to day, that interests me. I know lots of remodelling went on in the 4thC, as well as hints that families were brought into some of the forts.

But then in the 4th C, I guess what your saying is that little is known for sure.

[Mithras]

Nathan - can you 'define' chalet? Big room? Small room? Several rooms?

[arklore70]

on a similar note...

was their a senior member of a conturbernium that perhaps reported to or answered to the Optio or Centurio? We know of immunes, and a tessarius. Perhaps I am reading too much into a modern infantry squad having tow team leaders and a squad leader, but I am curious.

I have yet to come across any evidence that such a position existed

V/r
Mike

[Mithras]

Well my concern is the Late Period and I believe a rank called semissalis probably acted as a conturbernium leader.

[Nathan Ross]

Paul - I'm not sure where the 'chalet' description comes from, but it always seems to be used to refer to these later irregular buildings. Looking at the High Rochester plan (in Current Archeology 164, which has the geophysical finding superimposed on the 1852 excavation plan), the later buildings seem to follow no particular pattern. Most are large-ish rectangular 'sheds' set close together - I'd estimate them at 50x20ft on average, and I'm guessing they would have had internal dividing walls as well. Some are built backing onto the rampart wall itself, others in roughly rectilinear clusters. Generally, the plan rather resembles that of an earlier civilian vicus, and I suppose the idea is that soldiers and their families would all live together.

Interestingly, High Rochester has no evidence of civilian structures outside the walls. Coinage evidence suggests it was abandoned c320AD, so the changes must have happened in the later third century.

[Mithras]

I've heard about chalets and the introduction of families into the forts. My interest is in those forts with stone barracks, and how these stone rooms were used. Knocked through and rebuilt as chalets? Are the chalets in stone, Nathan?

[Nathan Ross]

Yes, they are in stone - the 1852 excavations were not exactly thorough, and recorded only stone remains in half of the fort, as far as I know. The old principia, flanked by double granaries, survive from the (presumed) original fort arrangement, along with an internal bathhouse - the rest, including what appears to be a large praetorium with heated rooms - almost entirely fills the Retentura. The old Via Decumana is gone, and the buildings run right up to the walls - their alignment does not appear to follow that of the original barrack blocks at all though. If I had a scanner I'd post the pictures from C.A., but sadly I can't - De la Bedoyere is the best alternative.

[D B Campbell]

The regular rows of standard-sized rooms are replaced by more irregular 'chalet style' accomodation.

Sorry to disappoint, but the "chalet" theory (propounded in 1980 in a well-known article by the late Charles Daniels) has long since been discredited.
The key discussion is P. Bidwell, "Later Roman barracks in Britain", in the 1989 Limeskongress volume.

The old stone and wood barrack blocks seem to have been either demolished or the internal walls knocked through to make larger rooms.

Known examples of 4thC barracks excavated under modern conditions (e.g. South Shields) demonstrate a reduction in barrack length, achieved by reducing the number of rooms (to 5 or 6). But the rooms are still standard size, divided into front arma and rear papilio.
Whether this indicates a reduced century-size seems still to be under discussion.

[Tarbicus]

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

Why is 10 better than 8? It's the other way around to me. Even in our digital age 8 is a more useful number than 10, as it is far easier to multiply with, divide by and calculate with. It seems to me that 8 men would be far easier to split up and coordinate, as you are never left with an odd man out should you need to create a multitude from a small number, especially if there need to be basic pairs for small tasks.

Did that make sense? :?

[Mithras]

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 ...

I see your point about 8 being a nice figure to work with, though the US army infantry use a 10-man section I believe, with 2 five man fireteams (though my memorry is hazy ...).

On a related point, Vegetius and Maurice talk about having files 8 or 16 men deep, with the file leaders at the front, on the front line. A 10 man squad messes this system up too! Much more useful in that context would be an 8-man squad.

So that was going to be my next question :lol: :lol: It seems like a descrepancy to me. If it was just Vegentius I'd discount the 10-man squad as something he considers to be the best formation, but Maurice is so much more reliable ...

[Nathan Ross]

Sorry to disappoint, but the "chalet" theory (propounded in 1980 in a well-known article by the late Charles Daniels) has long since been discredited.
The key discussion is P. Bidwell, "Later Roman barracks in Britain", in the 1989 Limeskongress volume.

Ah, that's interesting. The article I mentioned above, from C.A., is by James Crow at Newcastle University and dated 1999, and as he uses the 'chalet' expression I assumed it to be a current theory. It could be that his terminology relates specifically to High Rochester, where the later stone buildings are clearly distinct from the pattern of the older barracks. Looking at the geophysical survey findings, though, it does seem that the 'older' barracks themselves are shorter than they ought to be - perhaps reduced in length at some point. It could be, then, that there are three stages in development: first the original barracks, then the 'shortened' barracks, perhaps for reduced-sized centuries, then the razing of the barracks and their replacement by different buildings altogether.

With regard to the reconstructed barrack rooms at Arbeia - I've seen some pictures which seem to show single beds - surely, though, bunk beds must have been necessary? Actually I've always thought the average-sized (12ft sq approx?) barrack-room papilio rather small even for eight men to live in for extended periods - of course, it could be that the average Roman soldier had a less well-developed sense of personal space than we might do today!

- Nathan

[A_Volpe]

Hot-Bunk...Like on a Submarine!

Someone's gotta be on Guard duty or Work Detail or perhaps sick or on leave, so having an extra 2 guys ensures you have a full force :wink: