Where did they keep the mules in garrison?

[Paullus Scipio]

Question, is there any consensus about how many animals single legion had?

People are free to speculate, of course. But in truth, we have absolutely no idea how many mules a single legion might have.

...You are right, Duncan, but it is all to easy to trot out the "universal cliche" when applied to the subject of ancient military matters of ; "Ah, but we don't/can't know for certain, because we simply don't have the hard/corroborating information". We can do more than speculate in many instances, such as this one - we can make an educated guess, combining what information we have, with what is possible/probable. As I posted, any 'guesstimate' must be rough, and doubtless the number and type of pack-animals/wagons that supported a Roman Army in the field varied enormously, depending on a myriad of factors such as geographical location, size of army, rainfall, availability of crops, density of local population etc etc to the point where it is certain that no two were the same.Still, figures such as those I referred to give some idea of minimum/normal requirements for the Roman Army

And many legions would've had absolutely no use for mules, in any case.

Since the preferred pack-animal of the military has universally been the Mule from time immemorial right down to the present ( both sides use mules in Afghanistan, for instance), and since there are many references to mules in the Roman Army, that suggestion is most improbable. Of course, on occasion there might be a shortage of mules, and donkeys or camels substituted, but it would be fairly safe to say that mules were present in all Roman Armies, and that their total absence would be an extreme rarity, if it ever occurred.

Even taking a hypothetical "legion at war", Jonathan Roth believes that each tent-party required two mules, while others imagine that they had only one mule -- there's a doubling of the figures, right there!

That is simply incorrect, and perhaps you have mis-recalled Roth. No serious study of Roman Army logistics can be undertaken without reference to Roth ( see e.g. Erdkamp and others whose works refer to him), notwithstanding your own misgivings of his book. What he actually says is :

Thus, the impedimenta of a contubernium was composed of some 145 kg: the tent with accessories 39.5 kg., the stone mill with vat 27 kg., 16 pila muralia 39.2 kg, and the tools and baskets 18.7 kg, the cooking-pot (630 g.) and the pack-saddle ( stramentum ) 20 kg.43 It is clear that the equipment of the contubernium could have easily been carried by the men and a single mule, which had a combined capacity of more than 200 kg. These calculations do not account for the transportation of provisions. Taking 1.4 kg. a day for the ration of the soldier the contubernium and a single mule could carry three days' provisions. This agrees with the statement in Josephus that the legionary carried three days' rations. [Roman Logistics in the Jewish War]

...and similarly elsewhere....

The equipment of the Contubernium and five days rations could easily be carried by the contubernium and a single mule [The logistics of the Roman Army(264 BC- AD325) ]

He then goes on to refer to very rare occasions when ancient authors refer to the issue of more than 5 days rations e.g. Livy Periocha/fragments 57 "...he compelled (each) soldier to carry thirty days' grain ( frumentum ) and seven stakes." - an additional 45-50 kg or so, clearly an impossible burden. He makes the point that Livy was writing long after the event, and hence may not be reliable....(Thus he does not make the "tacit assumption" that what applies to earlier times necessarily applies to the Early Principate - contra your review - but sometimes the only information we have to draw on is scattered across a number of sources)
- and suggests that if true, this would require a second mule, or else the extra rations being carried in the Supply Train.
He certainly does not suggest that two mules per contubernium was the norm.

However, your contention may well be right, in the sense that one Roman Army might well have had twice as many pack-animals as another. A theme that runs through our historical accounts is the propensity for troops to attract booty, and animals/carts/waggons to transport it. We frequently hear of commanders having to cut back the baggage train as a necessary prelude to a particular campaign, not to mention that other propensity throughout military history for officers to bring along many necessary "comforts and luxuries" and the means to transport them. Then there's all the "camp-followers" and their baggage......

M.Demetrius wrote:

Just imagine the amount of fodder, and sometimes water, needed for that herd of animals! They drink a lot, you know.

Exact figures are discussed by Roth in detail, but as a very rough guideline, each animal requires 2-5 kg of hard fodder per day, or 10-14 kg in pasturage, and roughly 20 litres of water per day. Taking the rough figures for 'de minimis' number of animals per Legion I quoted earlier, this would mean each Legion had a broad daily requirement of some 4,000-10,000 Kg (4.4- 11 U.S. tons) of hard fodder or the equivalent of 20,000-28,000 Kg (22-30 U.S. tons) in pasturage and 40,000 litres(10,400 U.S. gallons) of water per day.....just for the animals alone ! hock:

Now you know why most ancient campaigns were carried out along river valleys - for water and transport.....