\'Hyginus\' Cavalry Units

[Mark Hygate]

I have known of 'Hyginus' De Munitionibus Castrorum for many years and have seen it referred to in many interpretations, but have only recently been able to review it myself in Catherine Gulliver's very handy translation from the JRMES Vol 4 1993.

I may have several concerns over it in general, but what I'd like to ask here, if I may, is whether there are any other primary sources that detail the 16 (Q) & 24 (M) Turma cavalry units?

On a related issue - is this also the only source for the 32-strong Turmae?

[D B Campbell]

what I'd like to ask here, if I may, is whether there are any other primary sources that detail the 16 (Q) & 24 (M) Turma cavalry units?

You're not asking for much, are you?! :wink:

On a related issue - is this also the only source for the 32-strong Turmae?

You're in luck. Arrian records that an ala numbered 512 troopers -- which divides nicely by the expected 16 troops to give a troop-strength of 32.

It might be worth noting that Vegetius (2.14.1) thought that the legionary cavalry was divided into troops of 32, as well.

It's all in the Osprey Roman Forts book. :wink:

[Mark Hygate]

what I'd like to ask here, if I may, is whether there are any other primary sources that detail the 16 (Q) & 24 (M) Turma cavalry units?

You're not asking for much, are you?! :wink:

On a related issue - is this also the only source for the 32-strong Turmae?

You're in luck. Arrian records that an ala numbered 512 troopers -- which divides nicely by the expected 16 troops to give a troop-strength of 32.

It might be worth noting that Vegetius (2.14.1) thought that the legionary cavalry was divided into troops of 32, as well.

It's all in the Osprey Roman Forts book. :wink:

In the course of my research I have indeed acquired your rather excellent books on the Legionary and particularly Auxilliary Forts (flattery well deserved when it's true! )

So, I'm going to be bold and query whether anyone else might be of the opinion that Hyginus and Arrian have got it wrong? Are they both guilty of trying to get a Quingenary Ala to be ~500 strong. Let alone raise the point that trying to command a unit of 16 sub-units is tremendously difficult (don't even ask about 24!).

Secondly, Vegetius actually states the legionary cavalry are in 'troops' of 33, rather than 32. (And now I'll query Vegetius too!). Here I believe Vegetius has made a classic mistake - he's adding the 3 'officers' to the ranks of 10 rather than including them. He does the same thing with his centuries and cohorts. He has assumed a quingenary cohort is made up of 5 centuries, each of 100 men, organised in 10 contubernia of 10, each with a leader (so, 10 x 11 = 110) to which he adds the centurion (=111) so the cohort totals 555. He does the same with the first cohort, but, of course, doubles it. I doubt many here would wonder why I would query that, let alone ask the simple question - why change a good system (5 x double-century first cohort and the others of 6 centuries). Vegetius is writing from his own 'historical' perspective, when the field armies have changed things (and he sees 'legiones' as much smaller, as we know), let alone spotting that the thrust of his treatise is to 'big up' the old legion :wink:

But, back to the Cavalry. I would argue that the Polybian Turmae of 30 (in 3 ranks of 10, each with a Decurion) remained. Josephus is explicit in identifying the legionary cavalry as 120 (4 x Turma...) as well as the identical number added to each of the mixed auxiliary cohortes equitata.

I will also, as I found it most illuminating in supporting my contention, refer to your own notes on the, otherwise standard, barrack blocks actually occupied by cavalry, but with 9 'contubernia' spaces. I did, however, want to argue that they wouldn't be in 9 groups if 3 (with 3 missing); because this simply isn't the way the military mind works. What I would like to suggest is that the 9 were divided into 3 groups of 3 (for each of the 'ranks of 10'). 2 of them would be occupied by 4 men each and their horses, whilst the 3rd would have the 'NCO/rank closer' plus 2 horses (his own and the 'leaders'). The 3 'officers' would then occupy the 'centurion house, just like the 3 'officers' of the century would. I contend there is no way they would be evenly divided, otherwise how would you carry out room inspections! :lol:

And to all I would apologise. I don't wish to ask for 'everything', but I hadn't seen anything else apart from Hyginus to counter my thoughts. I hadn't got to Arrian yet, but he's on the list. I do intend to be good and find all the counters to my arguments too.. :roll:

[PhilusEstilius]

Mark.

I think one of the better books to consider is "ALA 2" by John Spaul first published 1994 by NECTORECA PRESS 57 Charlton Road, Andover, SP 10 3JY. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN O 9525062 0 3 "The Auxiliary Cavalry Units of The pre Diocletianic Imperial Roman Army" by John E. H. Spaul.

[D B Campbell]

In the course of my research I have indeed acquired your rather excellent books on the Legionary and particularly Auxilliary Forts ...

I find them quite handy. I'm glad you do, too.

Secondly, Vegetius actually states the legionary cavalry are in 'troops' of 33, rather than 32. (And now I'll query Vegetius too!). Here I believe Vegetius has made a classic mistake - he's adding the 3 'officers' to the ranks of 10 rather than including them.

Vegetius is seldom sound when it comes to numbers. But I thought that it was at least worth noting that the figure of 32 cropped up again.

et habet una turma equites triginta duos. huic qui praeest decurio nominatur. ... triginta duo equites ab uno decurione sub uno vexillo reguntur.

I take it you're including the decurion to get your total of 33, Mark?

[Renatus]

I have known of 'Hyginus' De Munitionibus Castrorum for many years and have seen it referred to in many interpretations, but have only recently been able to review it myself in Catherine Gulliver's very handy translation from the JRS Vol 4 1993.

Not JRS, but JRMES.

[Mark Hygate]

My apologies - I knew I'd seen it shortened before, but didn't want to confuse.

I've edited my original post to conform.

[Mark Hygate]

Mark.

I think one of the better books to consider is "ALA 2" by John Spaul first published 1994 by NECTORECA PRESS 57 Charlton Road, Andover, SP 10 3JY. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN O 9525062 0 3 "The Auxiliary Cavalry Units of The pre Diocletianic Imperial Roman Army" by John E. H. Spaul.

Thank you. I had come across references to both Ala2 & Cohors2 in my searches, but, not only are they out of print, but rather pricey even then. I must, however, try to get hold of some copies even temporarily.

[Mark Hygate]

et habet una turma equites triginta duos. huic qui praeest decurio nominatur. ... triginta duo equites ab uno decurione sub uno vexillo reguntur.

I take it you're including the decurion to get your total of 33, Mark?

Actually no (not deliberately), but sadly, as I chose German over Latin, haven't been able to read it in the original and my copy of Vegetius is a pure translation. I would certainly be interested if that seems in error?

The translation I am using is Lt John Clarke's in the Roots of Strategy book edited by Brg Gen T R Phillips (Stackpole Books 1985), which I've had for many years. In the organisation section at the beginning it quotes the first cohort with 132 'horse cuirassiers' and cohorts 2-10 with 66 each - hence my figure of 33. Your quote is from later and is not as easy to determine, is the decurion in or out of the 32? Given his treatment of the 'mess leaders' and the centurion, the only way to achieve his numbers is to add, rather than include them in the numbers. Hence his centuries of 111 and troops of 33.

It's this and Vegetius' assumption that a century = 100 men + another 10 'decanus', that casts doubt on this level of detail.

[D B Campbell]

In the organisation section at the beginning it quotes the first cohort with 132 'horse cuirassiers' and cohorts 2-10 with 66 each - hence my figure of 33.

Aha -- that's Veg., Mil. 2.6.3-8. As I said, his figures are usually dodgy. He seems to be doing what you did: 32 men + 1 decurion = 33 per troop.

The section I quoted earlier (2.14.1) is specifically "about the troops of legionary cavalry" (de turmis equitum legionariorum). There, he says that "one troop has thirty-two horsemen; the man in charge of these is called a decurion; ... thirty-two horsemen are managed under one banner by one decurion".

[Mark Hygate]

The section I quoted earlier (2.14.1) is specifically "about the troops of legionary cavalry" (de turmis equitum legionariorum). There, he says that "one troop has thirty-two horsemen; the man in charge of these is called a decurion; ... thirty-two horsemen are managed under one banner by one decurion".

Thank you; once more it's useful to have others opinion on the translation, for I have noticed that translators also have to interpret as well as simply transpose and I have seen different results from different people. My copy of the part you have given that I have 'bolded', for example says.."Every century has its ensign and every troop its standard." Which is not the same at all and even I can see it's different!

Either way, I believe that Vegetius is at least consistent in his 'adding' approach and therefore I am suggesting the Turmae should be 30 - just as it was in Polybius' day (and before). It does fit in a standard barracks - whether it has 10, or the specialised 9 (always known to be for a Turmae), barrack rooms.

[D B Campbell]

My copy of the part you have given that I have 'bolded', for example says.."Every century has its ensign and every troop its standard." Which is not the same at all and even I can see it's different!

Actually, you make an interesting point. The text of Vegetius that we use nowadays dates back to the "official" Teubner text of 1869, which weighed up the evidence of several different exemplars (as far as I recall, there are dozens of manuscript families for Vegetius) and selected the most likely Latin text. It may be that John Clarke's version pre-dates the 1869 watershed. (I haven't studied his version myself, but isn't he 18th century?)

[Vindex]

My Clarke translation says it was first published in 1767 so almost a century before Teubner.

Think I need to find a new translation!

[Mark Hygate]

My Clarke translation says it was first published in 1767 so almost a century before Teubner....

Yes indeed, I hadn't really concentrated on that bit, but yes, the Clarke version I have is indeed the same. Supposedly the 'best available English translation'.

This is something I am factoring in to my thought process. All the written full text evidence we have (as opposed to archaeological fragments or inscriptions) are copies of copies, not all of which are the same, many of which are archaic Greek writings of Roman/Latin concepts, often translated into German (in the main, it seems) and trying to be understood by 'me' in English. The opportunity for mistakes and errors is endless! I'm even thinking of just the simple lessons I've given on Chinese Whispers to cadets!

[Renatus]

My Clarke translation says it was first published in 1767 so almost a century before Teubner....

Yes indeed, I hadn't really concentrated on that bit, but yes, the Clarke version I have is indeed the same. Supposedly the 'best available English translation'.

This assessment of Clarke's version was undoubtedly true in 1940 when Phillips produced his abridgement but it has now been superceded. It is a bit off topic but I set out below an extract from a post I wrote for another forum dealing with with print-on-demand editions of Lang's Teubner text and Clarke's translation:

Epitoma Rei Militaris (ed. Carl Lang); published by Nabu Press; ISBN 1-142-06107-8; £16.53

Lang's first edition of the Epitoma was published in 1869, with a revised edition in 1885 (reprinted 1967). It is not clear which of them this is. The latter was the standard edition for over 100 years, until superseded by those of A. Önnerfors in 1995 and M.D. Reeve in 2004 (I say nothing of the heavily criticized edition of L.F. Stelten, published in 1990). The advantage that both of Lang's editions have over their successors is a splendid index verborum, listing and referencing by page and line number virtually every word in the text. I find this absolutely invaluable for navigating my way about the work. I would not be without it, although I use Reeve for the purposes of quotation. This volume seems a relatively cheap way of acquiring a still serviceable text with a valuable tool that can be used in conjunction with more modern editions.


Military Institutions of Vegetius, in five books, translated from the original Latin, with a preface and notes, by Lieutenant John Clarke; published by Gale ECCO, Print Editions; ISBN 1-140-87092-0; £14.61

Until the publication of the translations of Stelten (1990) and Milner (1993; revised edition, 1996), the only translation of the Epitoma available in English was Lt. Clarke's and that only in abridged form. This puts his full version on the market for the first time since its original publication in 1767. The problem with translations of this age is that they are only as good as the texts upon which they are based and some of those are pretty poor. Reeve comments that all editions of the Epitoma before Lang's derive from an edition published in Rome in 1487 which is so corrupt that it is "a travesty of what Vegetius is likely to have written." Consequently, they are "quite unsafe to use". Inevitably, Clarke will have used such an edition. He refers in his preface to the commentaries of Stewechius and Scriverius from which I infer that he was probably using one of Scriverius' 17th century editions. I had often wondered why his description of cataphracti equites in Veg.3.23 differs so markedly from later translations in that he completely reverses Vegetius' assessment of their efficacy against scattered infantry. Having now viewed Scriverius' 1607 edition online, I see that the fault lies in the Latin text not, as I had thought, in a mistranslation by Clarke. If, therefore, the text from which he worked was "unsafe to use", so must be his translation. In his preface, he comments upon the previous translation of John Sadler (1572) that "his Work has little Value but that of Antiquity". Alas, the same may now be said of Clarke's.

This title is not to be confused with Military Institutions of the Romans, itself available as a print-on-demand book as well as in a number of cheap editions and online. This is the abridgement of Clarke's translation that I referred to above. It originally appeared in 1940 as one of a number of military classics published under the overall title of Roots of Strategy, edited by Maj. (later Brig. Gen.) T.R. Phillips of the U.S. Army, and was later published on its own. It consists of only the first three books of the Epitoma and, in these, some passages have been edited out. One chapter in Book 2 has been reduced to a single sentence. Frankly, there is no longer any point in bothering with this abridgement. There is a better modern translation in Milner and, if one really wants to have Clarke's version, it is now available in its entirety.