RomanArmyTalk
Legion Equites and Singulares - Printable Version

+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Legion Equites and Singulares (/showthread.php?tid=31794)

Legion Equites and Singulares - Steven James - 04-22-2024

Does anyone know what a legion equites and singulares would look like in the principate? Or is this another unsolved mystery?

Thank you in advance

Steven

RE: Legion Equites and Singulares - dadlamassu - 04-22-2024

I am not sure that this will help much.  When I was searching for suitable figures for my Roman Legion (Legio VI Victrix) project I found that there was a dearth of information on these two unit types.  I found contradictory information on numbers in the Equites Legionis.  I found a few illustrations but little actual evidence.
Graham Sumner depits a 2nd Century equites legionis as
[Image: 62e129b0a95808e90e05cb321ab97613.jpg]

Since my intention was to build an entire legion a 1/20 figure scale for rank and file I decided upon the often quoted (Josephus) figure of 120 giving 6 figures for the Equites Legionis.  This still left me with the problem of which model soldiers to use. 
In the end, after interminable Google searches and delving into books the best dress I could come up with was that my toy soldiers would be dressed in in a similar fashion to his footsore counterparts except that I gave them lorica hamata instead of  the lorica segmentata of the line cohorts as I thought the mail might be more suited to mounted warfare, plumed attic helmets, oval shield with the same heraldry as the footsoldiers, they all wear cloaks and I armed them with spears.  All of this was to differentiate them from my Auxiliary cavalry.  So what I have ended up with is a conjectural idea of two cavalry units in a more upmarket style of dress than the rest of the legionaries.  The yellow plumes came from my notes but I forget the sourse (Arrian or Vegetius maybe?)

My equites legionis
[Image: FxXoHQ2.jpg]

My equites singulares were even more problematic.  So I used the same figures, painted differently and with a different shield heraldry.
[Image: wF5rRAn.jpg]

RE: Legion Equites and Singulares - Steven James - 04-30-2024

Allan, thank you for your response. I have passed on the information to a 3D sculptor, and he is greatly appreciative of the information.

Alan wrote:
Since my intention was to build an entire legion a 1/20 figure scale for rank and file I decided upon the often quoted (Josephus) figure of 120 giving 6 figures for the Equites Legionis.

Had academia compiled all the cavalry data from the principate, and especially Hyginus, what would be revealed is that Josephus is incorrect. He has confused the cavalry. I put Josephus 120 legion equites in the same great blunders as Polybius’ 4,200 infantry to a legion. All our understanding of the legion has been based on incorrect data or mistakes made by the ancient sources.

I’m using 10mm 3D figures for a Mid Republican consular army. The 300 Roman legion equites converts to three stands, with each stand holding eight cavalry figures arrayed four by two. I like the mass look. Back in 2000, I started designing my own rules, which, through overzealous researching and questioning, has now turned into a four or five volume set on the Roman army from 513 BC to 410 AD, and happily near completion, and even more so, been taken seriously by some publishing houses.

Now, I have returned to redesigning my wargame rules based on my research.

Alan wrote:
So, what I have ended up with is a conjectural idea of two cavalry units in a more upmarket style of dress than the rest of the legionaries. The yellow plumes came from my notes but I forget the sourse (Arrian or Vegetius maybe?).

Now don’t be surprised if your interpretation ends up as a 3D figure.

Again, thank you for the information.

Steven

RE: Legion Equites and Singulares - dadlamassu - 05-01-2024

Thanks, Steven, I look forward to seeing your Legion.

I may have to convert more Equites Legionis!

Alan

RE: Legion Equites and Singulares - Arius - 05-02-2024

Any cavalrymen shown in attendance around Trajan on the column and Trajanic frieze are probably likely to be "equites singulares". Bearing in mind the usual caveats attached to interpreting these civic monuments, they are just dressed and equipped like the usual auxiliary cavalry. I suppose as an elite, they could be in more blingy kit and horse tack than your average trooper.

A crumpled shield boss dedicated by one Flavius Volusinus to the shade of Marcus Ulpius of the Equites Singulares has a little picture of a trooper riding down an enemy incised onto it. It appears to be no different from all the other "reiter" stelae from Germany.

No evidence exists for the equipment of principate legionary cavalry but there doesn't seem any reason to suppose they'd be any different from other cavalrymen.

I would imagine that a long scale shirt like the one in the painting would be awkward while in the saddle. If wearing a scale shirt at all I'd suppose it to be slit right up the sides and not much more than hip length. Vonatorix of Ala Longiniana seems to be in one of those [?] (disclaimer. I've not seem the original stone for years and I can't find really clear pics online): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Bonn_gravestone_Vonatorix.jpg A split up the front and back seems more logical but it doesn't seem to have been a Roman thing until much, much later.

The yellow plumes are mentioned by Arrian in his Ars Taktika when he is describing Roman cavalry tournaments. I imagine them as being flaxen (blonde) hair from chestnut horses rather than dyed bright yellow. Coincidentally [?] Yellow plumes are also mentioned being worn specifically by cavalrymen in the Marwanad Cynddylan (a 6th century Brythonic poem from sub-Roman Britain).

- Harry

RE: Legion Equites and Singulares - dadlamassu - 05-06-2024

I bought a second hand copy of "The Roman Cavalry" by Karen R Dixon & Pat Southern (1997) ISBN 0-415-17039-7 at the weekend. I have read the chapter on organisation and noticed that it and my copy of Josephus both use the term "attached" to describe the 120 cavalry. I have seen this before but it did not really register. Now before I say anything I must say that I have not seen the original Latin and that my Latin is not good enough to say which words were used nor whether "attached" has the same meaning then as now.

As a retired senior army officer the use of term "attached" to a legion would indicate that these cavalrymen were from a different unit and additional to any normal complement within the legion. When I was serving a part of every set of orders included a section called "attachments and detachments". The former were units or subunits from other formations/units added to my order of battle and the latter were subunits from my unit loaned to other formations
/units. For example: An Infantry Brigade may detach an infantry battalion and have an armoured (tank) regiment attached as well as reconnaissance and other assets for a particular operation or on a semi-permanent basis.
If this is the meaning intended by Josephus and given that the Legions had been on campaign and the terrain the 120 attached cavalry could well have been attached to either reinforce the mounted component of the legions or as replacements for battle casualties. In either case I'm no wiser about the actual organisation of legionary cavalry. Maybe there was no fixed organisation? and the proportion of legionary cavalry varied on the availability of horses (camels?) and riders, training, role, terrain and many other factors.

If I accept the modern useage of "attached" then my Eques Legionis could have a reinforcement of 6 Auxiliary cavalry models. And (possibly) I could add more regular cavalrymen.

RE: Legion Equites and Singulares - Steven James - 05-07-2024

Alan wrote:
I bought a second hand copy of "The Roman Cavalry" by Karen R Dixon & Pat Southern (1997) ISBN 0-415-17039-7 at the weekend. I have read the chapter on organisation and noticed that it and my copy of Josephus both use the term "attached" to describe the 120 cavalry…As a retired senior army officer the use of term "attached" to a legion would indicate that these cavalrymen were from a different unit and additional to any normal complement within the legion.
 
During the Third Macedonian Wary, a body of about 800 foragers, and according to Livy, all Roman, were attacked by the Macedonians. In the translation of Livy (42 66), the 800 Romans are mentioned as being a “detachment.” As these men were led by a military tribune, they are part of a legion and were not an additional unit. This so called “detachment” of foragers is actually a vexillation.
 
Time and time again, I have read of academics fussing over the meaning of a single word in the hope it will be the holy grail that will reveal the answer to some ancient puzzle. I remember once reading an academic paper in which the author came to the conclusion that in order to meet his theory, Livy had used the wrong Latin words on eight occasions. When the Latin did not conform to his theory, he needed to blame Livy for getting it wrong. The poor standards of academia continue to amaze me.
 
As I have already stated in this threat, if you compile all the cavalry numbers for the principate, you will get a better understanding of the legion equites. With that information, you will truly understand the cavalry numbers in Hyginus’ camp arrangement. They are all on the same page. So, what stands in the way? Answer: people’s perception of what they believe or what they have learnt about the Roman army. Has any academic ever questioned whether Josephus’ 120 legion equites is correct? All I see is academia following the previous generations of academics, like well-trained sheep. Josephus’ 120 legion equites is both right and wrong. The figure of 120 is correct, and that they are legion equites is incorrect. There layeth the problem.
 
In 228 BC, the Romans disregarded some of their most sacred religious covenants, the main one being they would now raise more legions than set by the tribal system. To do this, they altered the tribal system as explained by Varro. They did this purposely for the upcoming war with Carthage, in which the Romans planned to instigate. The Romans were not going to war with Carthage in the same manner as they did during the First Punic War, in which they were hamstrung by their religious principles. In 211 BC, the Romans violated their religious principles again, when Livy (26 4 9) writes that “it was made practice to have the velites incorporated into the legion.” When Augustus came to power, he reimplemented the old principles of their religion, which dictated the number of legions that could be raised and the size of the legion, and especially the number of the legion equites that was allocated to a legion.
 
During the republic, everyone believes there were 300 Roman cavalry allocated to a legion. Polybius tells us so he must be right, because academia tells us he is right. Livy also claims a legion had 300 cavalry. However, Livy gives two examples of a legion of 5,000 infantry having 400 cavalry, which is a rounded number. Believe it or not, Livy is correct. However, academia has dismissed Livy’ 400 cavalry. There has been a massive failure to understand Roman military doctrines and practices. If they did, they would understand how 400 cavalry becomes 300 cavalry, and what happens to those missing 100 cavalry. If you compile all the data concerning the Roman cavalry of the republic, a clear picture will emerge, and yet strangely enough, academia has no interest in following such an exercise, and only interested in grabbing little snippets of data that benefit their theory, while discarding those that don’t.
 
The military practices of the republic carry on into the principes, but with some minor adjustments. The Roman military system maintains the same continuity since the reign of the last king. All that changes are the size of the units.
 
Alan wrote:
If this is the meaning intended by Josephus and given that the Legions had been on campaign and the terrain the 120 attached cavalry could well have been attached to either reinforce the mounted component of the legions or as replacements for battle casualties.
 
I would not follow this path of investigation. It is a road to nowhere.
 
Alan wrote:
In either case I'm no wiser about the actual organisation of legionary cavalry. Maybe there was no fixed organisation? and the proportion of legionary cavalry varied on the availability of horses (camels?) and riders, training, role, terrain and many other factors.
 
The legion equites had a fixed number and organisation. Hyginus and Arrian provide sufficient information. How this information gets used is a different matter.
 
Many on this forum follow the doctrines of academia, mainly due to many just reading academic books and accepting those ideas that suite their sensibilities. I do not see many challenging their own perceptions, but continually debase the primary sources to accommodate their theory. The other danger they follow is the favourites system, which has a particular ancient writer more reliable than other, which results in many ancient writers being ignored over others. This results in the Second Punic War being based on Polybius’ narrative, which if any academic worth his salt, would question, when all ancient historians are brought into play. The many contradictions presented by all the ancient historians paint a different picture to that of Polybius, which would make Goebbel’s happy, due to the high content of propaganda that can be found in Polybius. And many of these contradictions by other ancient historians that do not follow Polybius’ narrative, can be proven to be true. It’s understanding the data that reveals the truth.
 
However, I put this question to this forum. How can you ever understand the data in the primary sources when you are biased towards a particular ancient historian? How can you ever truly understand Hyginus when you believe he is full of errors?
 
And that is why to this day, academia has not advanced its knowledge of the Roman legion beyond the first book written on the Roman army by Lipsius in 1596.

RE: Legion Equites and Singulares - Nathan Ross - 05-07-2024

(Yesterday, 10:23 AM)dadlamassu Wrote: the use of term "attached" to a legion would indicate that these cavalrymen were from a different unit and additional to any normal complement within the legion. 

The usual explanation is that Josephus's 120 equites legionis were carried on the rolls of the centuries, and were fully part of the legion - that is, two horsemen formed part of each of the 60 centuries in the legion (which would therefore comprise 80 infantry, 2 equites, and 3 'officers'). They may have been accommodated in the century barracks, with their horses stabled with the centurion's horse. Perhaps they acted as mounted escorts to the centurion at times?

However, the legion equites could be used together as an ad-hoc unit, as we read in Arrian and in one of the accounts of the AD69 events, I think, where they are brigaded with the auxiliary cavalry.

Josephus's figure relates to the pre-Flavian legion, before the introduction of the 'double first cohort'. This change would presumably involve 4 horsemen for each of the five doubled centuries in the first cohort, bring the total number of equites legionis in the legion to 128.

However, the number of equites in the legion may have been expanded by more than that at some point, if Vegetius's figures are at all accurate.