Perge Fragments translation published

[valentinianvictor]

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   

[Dangun]

Very interesting.
It does seem that when a primary, working document appears, they often imply numbers that differ from the secondary literary sources.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[aligern]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[aligern]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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.

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.

[Dangun]

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.)

[Duncan Head]

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.)

[valentinianvictor]

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...

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

... 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.

[Duncan Head]

According to Robert Vermaat on the Fectio 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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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?

[Dangun]

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.

[Duncan Head]

A summary here 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 ) 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.