Prof. Fatih Onur of the University of Ankara has finally published his research on the Perge Fragments. These fragments are the remains of three Stele erected as a result of complaints by a Roman Legion concerning corruption, wrong rates of pay etc. They contain a sermio by the Emperor Anastasius I and an edict on how much pay each officer and ranker above Tirone should receive.
The startling thing is that the ranks on the edict are almost exactly the same as those given by Vegetius and Lydus, indicating that when the Stele were erected the legions were identical to those at least 100 years before the Stele were raised.
When Prof. Onur undertook his original work on the fragments he initially believed that they referred to what he called a 'double legion' because received wisdom had it that certainly by the date those Stele were erected, around 500AD, the legions sizes were between 500 and 1200 men strong, whereas the Stele were referring to much higher numbers. Onur's full research has revealed that the fragments related just to a single legion, possibly a Palatine one, whose strength was between 1440 and 1660 men strong, much larger than most historians credit legions at that date as being.
Onur's paper is in Turkish but the summary is in English, Prof. Philp Rance is completing the English translation of the paper which is hoped to be released soon.
I've posted several links for those with an interested to have a look at below-
RomanArmyTalk :: Topic: Late Roman Army Grade/Rank List under Anastasius (2/3)
View on www.romanarmytalk.com
Monumentum Pergense. Anastasios'un Ordu Fermanı
Monumentum Pergense. Anastasios'un Ordu Fermanı
"Bu çalışma, 30 yılı aşkın bir süre önce ele geçmiş bir yazıtı incelemektedir. Bu yazıt, Pamphylia'nın anakenti (metropolis) olan Perge'de yüzlerce parça halin...
View on www.academia.edu
Very interesting.
It does seem that when a primary, working document appears, they often imply numbers that differ from the secondary literary sources.
I think this is actually our first direct period source for the strength of a legion in the Late Empire: the literary sources offer only circumstantial data from which legion establishments have been inferred (and then, as is often the habit, downgraded from there).
This information does suggest that the new Constantine-and-after smaller legion was approximately one third of the size of a traditional legion as per Caesar to Vegetius. The old legion with an assumed 9 x 480-man and 1 x 800-man cohorts and an overall infantry strength of 5,120 seems to have been divided into three new legions, each with a theoretical ceiling of 1,706 men (1/3 of 5,120).
Guessing at the new legion establishment, it would seem logical to base it on the likely three- to four-cohort frontage of the old legion, say around 200 yards, but have it deployed in one line instead of the traditional three. Second and any subsequent lines would consist of other units, either legions or auxilia, allowing greater flexibility on the battlefield - at least in theory - because the second and third lines would not be tied to the first but could nevertheless support it.
Hence one might expect in the new legion:
- Three 480-man cohorts (1,440 men)
- One numerus of lanciarii or missile types (240 men?)
This would give a total strength of c.1,680(?) at full establishment. The three-cohort composition would allow a three-line deployment if desired, or the unit could be deployed in a single line (as appears to have been the case at, for example, Argentoratum).
One may note how the above suggested composition of the new legion appears to coincide with the strengths of 1,440 and 1,660 in the Perge fragments.
The more information on the LAte Roman army we get the more it seems as if there is only a fairly loose overall system to the size of units and that the attitude to unit structure that we have is very much based upon an eighteenth century and later European liking for order. Relating it to earlier Roman practice it might be an Augustan desire for order. Mind you, looking at unit sizes in the Napoleonic Wars I may be being a bit generous to nineteenth century systemization . Given that the Later Romans largely created their units by reduction from originally larger entities there might have been little standardisation at any point in time, though it would make sense if the basic building blocks were similar. I am reminded that in the Strategikon of Maurice the standardisation of units is something that the author desires rather than expects.
We do appear to get get an element of variation in several instances, although some of these may be illusory, e.g. five tagma sent west from the eastern empire equate to 6,000 men, indicating either an average strength of 1,200 and hence varying from the 1,600 legionary rule of thumb or three legions each of c.1,600 plus two auxilia of c.600 each, which would seem to be exactly right as far as our putative 1,600-man legion is concerned.
Given the systematic organisation of the Roman army when it is described in any detail by our classical sources there has to be an understood 'book' table of organisation somewhere, and I think it is worth trying to divine this.
Having thought a bit further on the subject, the late legion does seem to fit as a three-cohort organisation, with the additional troops over 1,440 perhaps being missile troops directly attached to each cohort. This would give each 480-man cohort an 80-man missile detachment to skirmish with or, in battle, stand behind the main body and shoot overhead. If the cohort deployed 6 ranks deep (cf. Vegetius), it would cover an 80-man frontage, which allows the missilemen to be a seventh 'rank' either coterminous with or slightly separate from their supported cohort.
Maurice's Strategikon was written in a later era; I think a better guide for the likelihood of standardisation in the later Empire (AD 324-ish to AD 476-ish) is Vegetius. He seems to suggest that standard unit sizes were the norm not the exception, both in his anticipated organisation and in his comments on 'modular' deployments.
Or , of course the five tagma could indicate five units , but the 6000 men could be based upon a count of the numbers of variable sized units seperately totalled. So it could be two units of 2000 and 4 units of 500.
I know its a slightly later period, but I have never had a satisfactory explanation as to why Procopius and Agathias refer to numbers of Roman troops rather than units. I'm not denying that the men are organised in units, but one would expect that, if unit sizes were equal we would get more statements of the movement of five legions, totalling x000 men or that 400 men were detached from the Regii to garrison xyz.
Of course we get a similar problem with Caesar where legions vary dramatically in numbers of effectives and he resorts to counting cohorts and giving numeric values.
What are the implications of your new numbers for the paired legions that appear in Ammianus and elsewhere?
Roy
Quote from: aligern on August 08, 2015, 08:06:23 AM
Or , of course the five tagma could indicate five units , but the 6000 men could be based upon a count of the numbers of variable sized units seperately totalled. So it could be two units of 2000 and 4 units of 500.
Or rather one of 3,000 and four of 500, five units being specified. Out of the many theoretical possibilities, I prefer one with some sort of balance between legions and auxilia, and three of the former plus two of the latter seems viable, at least to me.
Quote
I know its a slightly later period, but I have never had a satisfactory explanation as to why Procopius and Agathias refer to numbers of Roman troops rather than units. I'm not denying that the men are organised in units, but one would expect that, if unit sizes were equal we would get more statements of the movement of five legions, totalling x000 men or that 400 men were detached from the Regii to garrison xyz.
Of course we get a similar problem with Caesar where legions vary dramatically in numbers of effectives and he resorts to counting cohorts and giving numeric values.
One reason may be that Justinian seems to have had a habit of scraping together contingents of mercenaries (e.g. Heruli, Slavs) and sending them off as adjuncts to the regular units. If these hirelings were fighting in tribal contingents of indeterminate size rather than in regular organisations, it would explain why writers of the period developed a habit of referring to overall numbers. We do get a few cases of specific unit strengths, e.g. Belisarius hiring 600 Huns, and coincidentally this seems to fit the 600 for an auxiliary formations hinted at earlier, although this is a mounted unit.
Quote
What are the implications of your new numbers for the paired legions that appear in Ammianus and elsewhere?
I am familiar with paired auxilia (e.g. Cornuti and Bracchiati, Batavii and Reges, Celtae and Petulantes) but not paired legions. Pairing auxilia at what I take to be 'book' strength would give 600+600 = 1,200. This approaches the 1,440 non-skirmish strength of a legion, and there may have been a rule of thumb that two auxilia could substitute for one legion in the line of battle. An auxilium of 600 deployed six deep would have a frontage of 100 yards, so two together would cover 200 yards or a traditional legionary frontage.
The 1,440-man (plus missilemen) 'new' legion could deploy 8 deep for a 180-yard front or 6 deep for a 240-yard front. Deploying two cohorts 8 deep and one (perhaps the middle one) 6 deep would give frontages of 60+80+60 = 200 yards exactly: I am tempted to consider this as a possibility for the 'praetorian camp' formation adopted by the Primani legion at Argentoratum.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 07, 2015, 06:12:59 PM
I think this is actually our first direct period source for the strength of a legion in the Late Empire:
I wasn't only thinking of legions.
The Dura papyri - I believe the only extant unit roll of any type - also implies an auxiliary unit size far greater than the number given by literary sources.
(Its a great set of documents. Highly recommended. It gives names, enrollment dates, ranks, horses, horse conditions etc etc. And having multiple rolls from the same unit means that promotions and unit losses/retirements can also be inferred.)
Perhaps the key piece of information for reconstructing the internal organization of the Perge legion is that a lot of its personnel come in tens - there are (or is this "are supposed to be"?) 10 imaginiferi, 10 vexillari, 10 signiferi, 10 optiones; and 20 ordinarii, who seem to be the highest-paid officers after the two tribunes. This looks like we are dealing with ten sub-units (or conceivably five given the Roman fondness for doing things in pairs), rather than three cohorts.
(This from the table near the end of the 2014 article cited by Adrian.)
Several points to comment on from various replies to my post. Most historians believe first Diocletian then Constantine increased the number of both the legions and auxilia units by dividing them into two. These units were then surnamed Seniores or Iuniores. The Seniores had the veteran troops, the Iuniores the newer recruits and younger men. The legions do appear to have been paired, and Ammianus notew this as does Vegetius ie the Herculani was paired with the Iovii in the west and the Lanciarii was paired with the Mattiarii in the east.
Duncan pointed out that the officers below Tribune were in ten's, and this supports the ten cohort theory also based on a Late Roman tombstone dedicated to an infantryman of the Xth cohort.
It has to be pointed out that the fragments relate to a legion of around 500AD, my own theory of legions upto Adrianople is that they were at least 2000 men strong, but that's another tale...
Quote from: valentinianvictor on August 08, 2015, 08:06:53 PM
Duncan pointed out that the officers below Tribune were in tens, and this supports the ten cohort theory also based on a Late Roman tombstone dedicated to an infantryman of the Xth cohort.
All of which does seem to give the late legion ten cohorts. This would make the 'cohorts' about double-century sized, i.e. c.160 men each or about the size of a Polybian maniple.
Quote... my own theory of legions up to Adrianople is that they were at least 2000 men strong, but that's another tale...
Perhaps one that deserves airing. :)
According to Robert Vermaat on the Fectio (http://www.fectio.org.uk/articles/ranks.htm) website, "The ordinarius (rank) seems to have been the same as the centurion of the old-style regiments, commanding eighty men according to a papyrus describing a sixth-century cohort." If the 20 ordinarii of the Perge inscription also led 80 men each, that would indeed give Onur's 1600-man legion.
It's odd that there are only 10 optiones; in the early Imperial army the optio was the centurion's second-in-command, but now it looke like two ordinarii shared an optio.
I wonder if the optio of the period was a sort of cohort sergeant-major as opposed to the deputy of a specific ordinarius.
Interestingly, the ordinarius commands a number of men similar to that in Livy's (VIII.8 )
ordo. (Similar, not exact, because the ordinarius commanded 80 and Livy's ordo had 60, but it is the same century-ish size range.)
We now have the question of what the 1,440-man figure represents (apart from 3 x 480, which may have been the original raw material when Constantine got out his dividers). 144 men to a (new) cohort or 72 to a century might still leave room for 8 lanciarii types attached to each century, i.e. 16 to each cohort, giving a legionary infantry contingent of 1,440 and an integral skirmish/missile contingent of 160.
Fitting the presumed missile contingent into deployment is intriguing. In terms of frontage, 1,600 men eight deep would cover the traditional 200 yards, and this seems good enough, except that Vegetius seems to like 6 deep. The problem with 6 deep is that it challenges the arithmetic of an 80-man century, whereas 72 men can deploy 12 x 6 or 9 x 8 with equal ease, leaving the assumed 8 lighter types to shoot from behind the lines - or skirmish ahead prior to the main action. A guess at the 'praetorian camp' formation might be four cohorts deployed 9x8 (one at each end and two in the middle) and the remaining six in 12x6, with the missilemen grouped centrally, separately and rearwards to shoot over any part of the line.
At least we seem to have established that a 1,600-man legion in ten 160-man cohorts as of the time of the Perge inscription gives a good fit with the available evidence.
Quote from: Dangun on August 08, 2015, 03:58:21 PM
The Dura papyri - I believe the only extant unit roll of any type - also implies an auxiliary unit size far greater than the number given by literary sources.
Out of interest, how large a size for an auxiliary unit do these papyri imply?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 09, 2015, 11:17:17 AM
Out of interest, how large a size for an auxiliary unit do these papyri imply?
The papyri suggest an actual size about double the pseudo-Hyginus number of approx. 1000.
Its not an original thought at all - I just read it in a paper written 25 years before I was born - but what do we do when the primary source stubbornly disagree with a secondary literary source? They might be exceptions, but this might be putting the cart before the horse in the hierarchy of evidence.
A summary here (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=z_vuBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA297&lpg=PA297&dq=dura+palmyran+cohort+strength&source=bl&ots=dxt3qx0P-q&sig=2utVMrAdQtIAeIFnBxri7fudXiQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAGoVChMIkoqq6rScxwIVakfbCh298gNV#v=onepage&q=dura%20palmyran%20cohort%20strength&f=false) suggests that the Dura records show a strength of 923 for Coh. XX Palmyrenorum at one point, 781 at another.
There is a suggestion (hinted at here (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DQgmOZlsEWcC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=palmyran+archers+parthian+garrison+dura+roman+cohort&source=bl&ots=ihErPL8p1h&sig=N-pHjEf46-rhB-hZt_dvWH2UTMA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAGoVChMIy8jQkbacxwIVTLMUCh3bSQ5X#v=onepage&q=palmyran%20archers%20parthian%20garrison%20dura%20roman%20cohort&f=false) ) that this unit was originally raised to garrison Dura for the Parthians, and was incorporated into the Roman army when the city was taken over. Specific unit origins like this might account for some of the differences between presumed establishments and actual unit compositions.
Quote from: Duncan Head on August 09, 2015, 05:28:56 PM
suggests that the Dura records show a strength of 923 for Coh. XX Palmyrenorum at one point, 781 at another.
Those numbers are just wrong.
But the book you have quoted doesn't give sources, so I can't parse where the confusion has occurred.
I suspect, that the number given by this book of 923 and 781 are
only the number of pedites named in the documents.
If you add in all of the other troop types, ranks, unreadable / missing lines, and make a small allowance for attrition etc., you get a far larger total unit size.
For the original document see:
* Roman Military Records on Papyrus, (Fink, 1972); or
* The Excavations at Dura-Europos. Final Report V, Part I, the Parchments and Papyri, (Welles, Fink, Gilliam, 1960)
For analysis see for example:
* Fink, "The Cohors XX Palmyrenorum, a Cohors Equitata Miliaria", Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, (Vol. 78, 1947) pp. 159–170
* Davies, "Centurions and Decurions of Cohors XX Palmyrenorum", Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, (Vol. 20, 1976), pp. 253-275;
* Fink, "Centuria Rufi, Centuria Rufiana, and the Ranking of Centuries", Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, (Vol. 84, 1953), pp. 210-215
Happy to send a PDF copy of any of these to anyone interested.
To quote Fink "The entire personnel (of Cohors XX Palmyrenorm) would consequently have numbered about 1500 in A.D. 222." (p. 163) and that is before any allowance for normal attrition. Fink includes an extensive comparison of the Hyginus numbers with the actual numbers.
I think Nicholas and Duncan each have a point.
The Cohors XX Palmyrenorum appears, at least on Fink's analysis, to have a level of strength closer to a 4th century AD legion than to that of a standard auxiliary unit.
However the Cohors XX Palmyrenorum may itself be a non-standard unit for significant local reasons.
I am not sure we can generally condemn period writers' standard organisations on the basis of a single apparently non-standard unit; equally it would seem that the standard organisation is not necessarily universal and we can encounter exceptions.
The essence of the matter is: do we feel the exception proves the rule?
I haven't yet been able to do any ferreting through actual physical books, but the extract here (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DQgmOZlsEWcC&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=cohors+xx+palmyrenorum+cavalry&source=bl&ots=ihErQJ2q4l&sig=E9LkZ2kIVJJDgPvmjXTCQBhkARI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwA2oVChMIwOisp8qexwIVSf0eCh0HVAXE#v=onepage&q=cohors%20xx%20palmyrenorum%20cavalry&f=false) gives a bit more detail on XX Palmyrenorum: the roster of AD 219 lists 850-860 infantry, 335 cavalry, and 20 dromedarii, a total of 1205-1215 men. The text of this papyrus. P. Dura 100, is here (http://www.papyri.info/ddbdp/p.dura;;100). However DuBois in my original link reckoned this same report showed 721 men present for duty; I don't know if this is a seriously different reading of the papyrus, or if he is simply excluding the men out in detached garrisons - the papyrus lists men on detachment at Appadana, Beccufrayn, and other places.
If, as Edwell in the link suggests, the unit has six double-strength centuriae and five double-strength turmae, that would give XX Palmyrenorum in 219 an establishment of about 960 infantry and 320 cavalry, total 1280(*) - assuming a turma is 32 men and so a double-strength turma 64, then the cavalry are over even this strength. And Hyginus reckons a cohors milliaria equitata should have 760 foot and 240 horse, so Coh. XX is a lot bigger than "standard", assuming that Hyginus is right about what is "standard".
(*)The dromedarii are apparently carried on the books of the infantry centuries, so I presume they don't need to be added to this total.
It does rather beg the question, who was in charge of numbers and how fixated were the Romans by 'system'
For example if a cohort was in garrison in a certain location the situation may have changed. Rather than needing '500' men things were a lot quieter and they only needed 250. Or perhaps there was a feeling that 1000 were called for.
Rather than move out a unit and move one or more in, did somebody take the decision to let the numbers of the unit fluctuate?
Certainly there is evidence of units which appear weaker than their official TOE might suggest and here we have one which might well have been stronger
Jim
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 10, 2015, 05:24:53 PM
Certainly there is evidence of units which appear weaker than their official TOE might suggest and here we have one which might well have been stronger
From memory, some papyri relating to garrison units in Egypt showed them to be understrength. In a quiet backwater there was probably not the same urgency to get them up to TO&E strength. Conversely, it looks as if XX Palmyrenorum was at times overstrength, perhaps because of being in a lively theatre and probably needing to execute special duties (caravan escort, etc.).
Quote from: Duncan Head on August 10, 2015, 02:40:34 PM
The text of this papyrus. P. Dura 100, is here (http://www.papyri.info/ddbdp/p.dura;;100). However DuBois in my original link reckoned this same report showed 721 men present for duty; I don't know if this is a seriously different reading of the papyrus, or if he is simply excluding the men out in detached garrisons - the papyrus lists men on detachment at Appadana, Beccufrayn, and other places.
The papyrus does seem to leave a certain amount of room for interpretation, not least because of the missing lines. Can anyone incidentally make sense of section 43, lines 15-18?
Auṛ[el(ius) Nis]ạmsus Heliodori
[ -ca.?- ] c̣xxxiiii in dupl(icari ) ị[ii]
ḍ[ro]madaṛị[i -ca.?- ]
(centuria) Daṇ[y]ṃị Teṛṭullo c̣ọ(n)s(ule)Just wondering where the number 134 fits in.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 10, 2015, 08:24:19 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 10, 2015, 05:24:53 PM
Certainly there is evidence of units which appear weaker than their official TOE might suggest and here we have one which might well have been stronger
It was the Egyptian stuff that I had in mind
Thank you Adrian for pointing out the paired legions. I am a little surprised that Patrick did not pick up on this as his schema for the pairing of auxilia neatly made two auxilia into an equivalent of a legion. If legions are paired then what does this mean for that theory.
So far no one has come across with a unified theory of Late Roman numbers that fits all the evidence and explains the exceptions. Given the far reaching nature of the proposed Diocletianic change, if it occurred then there ought to be some evidence of his edict Is there? Or is it possible that this all something that developed gradually through piecemeal reforms and catch ups here and there. Interestingly the situation on the Roman wall in Britain appears to reflect a different pattern .
Roy
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 10, 2015, 08:24:19 PM
From memory, some papyri relating to garrison units in Egypt showed them to be understrength. In a quiet backwater there was probably not the same urgency to get them up to TO&E strength. Conversely, it looks as if XX Palmyrenorum was at times overstrength, perhaps because of being in a lively theatre and probably needing to execute special duties (caravan escort, etc.).
This is an interesting question.
Because it can be argued the other way as well - units closer to the front suffer more attrition (casualties, desertions etc) and are further from natural sources of resupply.
If we accept for a moment that Hyginus was right and 1000 is standard, would a normal unit have the standard complement?
I would guess not.
Military units are often imperfectly staffed and supplied.
Highly speculative, but I would guess that normal strength would be 80 to 90% of notional/standard strength.
The practical upshot of all this guessing is that a comparison of a literary source's "standard" headcount to a primary sources' actual headcount probably understates the differences.
(PDFs sent)
Not only that but we're looking across centuries. When a legion or an auxilia remains in station for a century or two things are going to change. The actual combat arm of the unit could dwindle because supplying engineers or guards to tax collectors was far more important.
There are certain 'laws' of military strength such as that governments are always strapped for cash , that wuiet sectors get less investment, that a unit in the front line when reduced by the falling out of the weak and imvalid and the desertion of the cowardly is probably a more effective team than when it had more men. Logic suggests that the fullest legions would be those that were on hostile frontiers but where hot war had not started yet.
It would still be good to see evidence of official edicts on strengths, particularly at the tine of big changes. apparently in Britain the occupation record of firts does not tally with the the supposed garrison status in the Notitia. If this is typical it may be that the document is in many places unreliable , after all we do not know why it was produced. Also figures of 650,000 or 450,000 might well bear little relation to actual numbers . Maybe no one but a coupke of accountants and the emperor knew the number and just maybe no one actually knew at any one time. Knowing the total number of troops is not particularly useful if all if your provisioning is done piecemeal and your recruitment is done by request which is accepted or denied at say a regional level.
Roy
The Anastasian Edict at Perge was raised as a result of the troops of the legion in question complaining about corruption and other related matters which led to them not receiving their correct dues. The Edict and Sermio was raised so that everyone could see quite literally set in stone what everyone in that legion was supposed to receive. There is no other more accurate evidence you can get other than going back in time and enrolling in a legion to find out!
The legion as described by Vegetius had 6100 foot and 720 horse. It also had attached artillery. Vegetius notes that the legion also had a train of workmen without noting the numbers of those workmen. Also he neglects to mention how many of the 'light-armed' troops attached to the legion were in number. If we removed the workmen, artillery crew and also the light troops we would probably be left with around 4200-4800 heavy infantry. We know that the Late Roman's had separate units of both light troops and artillery so this is probably what happened when Diocletian began the reforms.
I've not got access to the Perge papers at the moment so cannot check to see if the Edict mentions pay for ballistarii crew and workmen or does it just relate to the infantry and officers?
Quote from: Dangun on August 11, 2015, 02:35:21 AM
This is an interesting question.
Because it can be argued the other way as well - units closer to the front suffer more attrition (casualties, desertions etc) and are further from natural sources of resupply.
If we accept for a moment that Hyginus was right and 1000 is standard, would a normal unit have the standard complement?
I would guess not.
Military units are often imperfectly staffed and supplied.
Highly speculative, but I would guess that normal strength would be 80 to 90% of notional/standard strength.
The practical upshot of all this guessing is that a comparison of a literary source's "standard" headcount to a primary sources' actual headcount probably understates the differences.
With the Roman army, this is balanced by a systematic recruitment system, which reached, or should have reached, into all important parts of the Empire. While the allocation of fresh men may on occasion have dragged behind losses to sickness, combat and discharge, the army's notaries would nevertheless be aware of the organisation and establishment they were supposed to be maintaining.
If Vegetius can state definite figures for unit establishments, he has to have derived them from somewhere other than his own imagination, especially in a work dedicated to a soldier-emperor.
Quote from: aligern on August 11, 2015, 09:44:02 AM
It would still be good to see evidence of official edicts on strengths, particularly at the tine of big changes. apparently in Britain the occupation record of firts [forts?] does not tally with the the supposed garrison status in the Notitia. If this is typical it may be that the document is in many places unreliable , after all we do not know why it was produced. Also figures of 650,000 or 450,000 might well bear little relation to actual numbers . Maybe no one but a couple of accountants and the emperor knew the number and just maybe no one actually knew at any one time. Knowing the total number of troops is not particularly useful if all if your provisioning is done piecemeal and your recruitment is done by request which is accepted or denied at say a regional level.
However pay does not seem to have been decided at the regional level except in the event of a usurpation, and if one is running an empire then paying the troops is a primary concern - and you definitely want to know the actual number of men you are forking out money for!
That's a line if logic, Patrick, that the centre wants to know what it is paying for, but there are other logics such as that commanders may include dead pays and that this might, as in Elizabethan times be tolerated . I have some doubt too that Pay returns are going to Rome and then being matched by oay chests going out from Rome. Surely there has to be some intermediate stage? I just worry that acceptance of the efficacy and accuracy of aroman bureaucracy is based upon ignoring the huge inefficiency of administrations from the dawn of history. That is not to say that thevrecords are always wrong, but they may often be. athat of course leaves out the large possibility that others are right and that numbers just run down and head office tolerates this..
That Vegetius has 6000 men in a legion may reflect that there was at one time such an actual organisation and he had direct knowledge of it or it may mean that he has a written source that is itself theoretical or an ambition or a document describing an ideal project to an emperor.
Removing a speculative number of 'light troops' may be a correct method to get to 4,200 or 4,800 or it may be baseless. It might ge that core legionaries were trained up to use sling and javelin and bow which were then carried in he baggage. Do we know that Diocletian or Constantine abstracted soldiers from the legion to form new units on a systematic gasis? Or is it much more ad hoc? What there does seem some dertainty about is the split of legions into seniores and juniores, I haven't got the article in front of me, but is this a matter of re equalising the army by splitting or could it be founding based upon cadres being transferred and then relocated and thus justifying the Juniores title?
Might it not be that emperors , especially when there are four in the field, build a mobile army from the best of what is available by abstracting circa 1000 or so good fit, men from a legion, perhaps the double cohort and then not returning it? That would leave rump legions of indeterminate size remaining in garrison, so a unit might lose its double cohort, a garrison for a fort, its lancearii and be left with about 2000 effectives?
Roy
And remember the vexellations drawn from legions that never went home. What strength would they be kept at?
Indeed the Vexellation might be a recognition by the centre that there was only so much of a legion that was made up of front rank fighting men at any one time. The rest would be assisting governors, overseeing quarries, training recruits, or on leave
Jim
Quote from: Duncan Head on August 10, 2015, 02:40:34 PM... the extract here (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DQgmOZlsEWcC&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=cohors+xx+palmyrenorum+cavalry&source=bl&ots=ihErQJ2q4l&sig=E9LkZ2kIVJJDgPvmjXTCQBhkARI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwA2oVChMIwOisp8qexwIVSf0eCh0HVAXE#v=onepage&q=cohors%20xx%20palmyrenorum%20cavalry&f=false) gives a bit more detail on XX Palmyrenorum: the roster of AD 219 lists 850-860 infantry, 335 cavalry, and 20 dromedarii, a total of 1205-1215 men. The text of this papyrus. P. Dura 100, is here (http://www.papyri.info/ddbdp/p.dura;;100). ...
If, as Edwell in the link suggests, the unit has six double-strength centuriae and five double-strength turmae, that would give XX Palmyrenorum in 219 an establishment of about 960 infantry and 320 cavalry, total 1280(*) - assuming a turma is 32 men and so a double-strength turma 64, then the cavalry are over even this strength.
Having now looked at the articles Nick has kindly sent, it seems:
- The papyrus Fink refers to as DP 12 is the same P. Dura 100 I linked to above, available online;
- Fink 1947 argues that "only five centuries of the cohort are included on either side, while it certainly had at least nine and probably had ten centuries"; and this is why he comes to the conclusion that the total strength of the cohort was as high as 1950, since there would have been 4-5 other centuries not listed in that papyrus.
- However Fink 1953 is clear that there were in fact only six centuries (and Davies 1976 quotes Fink's 1971 book as "Since all the evidence shows that the cohort had only six centuries at this time, three of the nine centurions on the rolls must be supernumeraries") - hence Edwell's six double-strength centuries. I think I much prefer this interpretation, which gives the cohort an establishment closer to 1280 than 1950.
Either version makes XX Palmyrenorum a large unit, larger than the apparent "establishment" strength of its type, perhaps uniquely so - or perhaps not.
Vegetius tells us that his Epitome was written using other manuals, now sadly lost to us, including one by Cato.
Interestingly Robert Vermatt put a comparison on RAT of Vegetius, Anastasius and Lydus's ranking structure and its very interesting to see the comparisons- http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-military-history-a-archaeology/293969-late-roman-army-grade-rank-list-under-anastasius.html?start=30
Quote from: valentinianvictor on August 12, 2015, 12:01:25 PM
Interestingly Robert Vermatt put a comparison on RAT of Vegetius, Anastasius and Lydus's ranking structure and its very interesting to see the comparisons- http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-military-history-a-archaeology/293969-late-roman-army-grade-rank-list-under-anastasius.html?start=30
Be warned: "This attachment is hidden for guests. Please log in or register to see it."
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 12, 2015, 12:17:58 PM
Quote from: valentinianvictor on August 12, 2015, 12:01:25 PM
Interestingly Robert Vermatt put a comparison on RAT of Vegetius, Anastasius and Lydus's ranking structure and its very interesting to see the comparisons- http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-military-history-a-archaeology/293969-late-roman-army-grade-rank-list-under-anastasius.html?start=30
Be warned: "This attachment is hidden for guests. Please log in or register to see it."
Its easy to sign up to the RAT forums Patrick, then your be able to see the attachment.
Given the Perge Fragments are genuine etc. which I have no reason to doubt, then why, if organisations were standard throughout the Empire ,would it be necessary to publish such a document / inscription. However, if organisations are irregular and disputable then I can see its point.nThat would also fit with a sutuation in which there was no regular standard establishment...or maybe several pissible ones. As the standard Roman method of sorting legal disputes out was to refer them up to the emperor and expect a ruling. The judgement would then descend down and be promulgated.
Interestingly the Introduction to the institutes if Zjustinian refers to the need for a codification because the accumulation of previous judgements had created a situation in which there were many contradictory rulings. That again, reinforces, in my opinion, the lack of cobsistency in Roman organisational systems. That the military organisation was entirely a matter of exceptions is unlikely, but that it consisted of some situations were units were similarly organised and others were organised rather differently with some common elements looks likely and fits the evidence. What we might see is not a consistents table, but rather a Venn diagram!
Roy
Doubtful, in my view, on the basis that when units were raised they would be raised to a pattern and that pattern would be laid down for all. Once the unit was raised, the vagaries of campaigning might eventually leave it looking a bit strange, but at some point the notaries would descend and it would presumably trend back to the standard pattern unless it had some very special reason for being otherwise.
That said, the Jovii and Herculani appear to have been raised, or reconstituted, as elite legions with a higher than usual establishment. Favoured units might well have had a more lavish TO&E, at least during the period of favour, albeit this seems more likely under a Diocletian than under an Aurelian, Pertinax or Probus. We might with advantage consider the imperial situation when assessing an apparently variant organisation.
The Dura papyri relate to the time of Macrinus (AD 217) and Elagabalus (AD 218-222). Macrinus was mainly engaged in bribing rather than reorganising the soldiery and Elagabalus had, shall we say, other primary interests. I would not be at all surprised to find that the Dura papyri contained a bit of creative accounting which was subsequently corrected (a theme incidentally developed by Harry Sidebottom in his novel
Fire in the East).
Anastasius ruled at a time when the Roman army of the eastern empire seems to have been undergoing some degree of reorganisation from the older Roman pattern to the first traces of the newer 'Byzantine' pattern. Confirming the organisation that would be applicable by setting it in stone would have been a sensible step in the circumstances.
Quote from: valentinianvictor on August 12, 2015, 12:46:25 PM
Its easy to sign up to the RAT forums Patrick, then you'll be able to see the attachment.
Thanks, Adrian; I was mainly hinting to others who may not be RAT forum members that the attachment would not be visible without registering.
Stumbled across this regarding the Perge fragments. Its not a translation, but a discussion of the contents.
https://www.academia.edu/2898696/The_Military_Edict_of_Anastasius_from_Perge_A_Preliminary_Report (https://www.academia.edu/2898696/The_Military_Edict_of_Anastasius_from_Perge_A_Preliminary_Report)
Its in English despite the French cover page.
PS: And if anyone would like a copy of the Dura roster (Latin) I am happy to send it over...
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 12, 2015, 10:59:42 PM
Doubtful, in my view, on the basis that when units were raised they would be raised to a pattern and that pattern would be laid down for all. Once the unit was raised, the vagaries of campaigning might eventually leave it looking a bit strange, but at some point the notaries would descend and it would presumably trend back to the standard pattern unless it had some very special reason for being otherwise.
That said, the Jovii and Herculani appear to have been raised, or reconstituted, as elite legions with a higher than usual establishment. Favoured units might well have had a more lavish TO&E, at least during the period of favour, albeit this seems more likely under a Diocletian than under an Aurelian, Pertinax or Probus. We might with advantage consider the imperial situation when assessing an apparently variant organisation.
We have to remember that a lot of units could have been raised a century or two previously, so all sorts of things could have happened to them
But I think you've highlighted what might be the nub of the issue. If legions could be raised to be exceptional, once 'exceptionalism' is accepted within the system then it tends to spread. I suspect that recruits would tend to be directed to where they were needed, as opposed to merely where there were units 'below paper strength.'
And once a unit has been 'below paper strength' for a generation or two, then that is going to be regarded as the new norm, because it's obviously adequate for the situation the unit has found itself in.
Jim
Well I do have severe doubts about units being raised to a pattern and that pattern being laid down for all. That might well be true in the early empire, but We should be careful of imposing that and nineteenth century European thinking on the middle and later empire. It is inherently possible that when abstracting vexillations the emperors asked for similar contributions from existing legions, but it is quite possible, too that they got back rather dfferent contributions fom each. Again there is a high likelihood that the junior leader structure of a new legion is standard, but the numbers of sub units and men within them could be very different and, as Jim just said, if we let time run then the clock of change will start running straight away.
Roy
I believe that there was a standard unit size both for the legions and other units as well. How else would the troops be able to have complained about corrupt practices such as having 'phantom' men on the pay roll lists who, although they did not actually exist, actually drew pay and allowances which then passed into the hands of the corrupt officers. And how would allowances be able to be worked out unless there was a standard unit size? Other corrupt practices could be stamped out if there was not only a standard size of a unit but also a fixed pay and allowance rate, which is exactly why the Stele were raised in the first place.
It's very difficult for many people to give up the existing paradigm about Late Roman unit sizes as it has been drummed into us for many years that said legion sizes were much smaller, based in the main on what I would have considered rather unreliable written records and papyri sources. Coello's work must bear the brunt of this criticism although I do not actually fault him as he does include a caveat about the unit sizes he discusses in the summary of his work which I think others have often overlooked.
Quote from: valentinianvictor on August 13, 2015, 10:52:54 AM
I believe that there was a standard unit size both for the legions and other units as well. How else would the troops be able to have complained about corrupt practices such as having 'phantom' men on the pay roll lists who, although they did not actually exist, actually drew pay and allowances which then passed into the hands of the corrupt officers. And how would allowances be able to be worked out unless there was a standard unit size? Other corrupt practices could be stamped out if there was not only a standard size of a unit but also a fixed pay and allowance rate, which is exactly why the Stele were raised in the first place.
This doesn't need a standard size for all units, mainly a standardised size for that unit
It might be that the standard was at century (or equivalent) level where a century was defined as x strong, where x equals a formal strength minus an accepted number of dead pays
Jim
Quote from: Dangun on August 13, 2015, 01:30:59 AM
Stumbled across this regarding the Perge fragments. Its not a translation, but a discussion of the contents.
https://www.academia.edu/2898696/The_Military_Edict_of_Anastasius_from_Perge_A_Preliminary_Report (https://www.academia.edu/2898696/The_Military_Edict_of_Anastasius_from_Perge_A_Preliminary_Report)
Its in English despite the French cover page.
This is actually very useful - thanks, Nicholas. Anastasius is re-establishing the old rules, or what he sees as the old rules, regarding
prokomai (promotions),
bathmoi (ranks) and
to tes stratias peras (conclusion of military service). The establishment (TO&E) of military units is taken for granted; what is at issue is abuse of the promotion and discharge systems, including obtaining rank for bribery, 'constructive dismissal' of old soldiers without gratuity and padding out muster rolls with 'dead pay', i.e. keeping the dead on the books. Anastasius decrees that these abuses shall stop, the 'paper' establishment shall henceforth be the actual establishment and any 'new norm' is old hat.
The author also points out that one hangover from the reign of Zeno was an Isaurian 'mafia' occupying many of the highest positions in the army. The decree published at Perge seems to have been aimed
inter alia at removing many or all of these. Perge, in Pamphylia, is coincidentally fairly close to Isauria.
Quote
PS: And if anyone would like a copy of the Dura roster (Latin) I am happy to send it over...
I'll bite ... :)
It will be very interesting to see Prof. Rance's English translation of Onur's latest work on the fragments. I have no idea when this is likely to be however...