Where did they keep the mules in garrison?

[Paullus Scipio]

D. Campbell wrote:

Ah, it's the infallible McDonnel-Staff again, with his rolling-eyes icon. You appear to have a hotline to the ancient psyche, unconstrained by the limits of archaeology or historiography.

..as so often, Duncan, you feel the need to descend into vitriolic scorn - which of course is a breach of the rules here. Any reader of this thread can see that it was YOU who started the rolling eyes thing in the post above. My response in kind was by way of poking fun at your use....

I certainly wouldn't like to be your quartermaster. "We might need 4,000 kg, and we might need 10,000 kg ... every day." There's not much difference, is there?!

...more unecessary sarcasm? I could respond in kind but won't... Obviously, there are many variables involved (actual number of animals,terrain, climate/weather, time of year, type of fodder available etc ), and a Roman quartermaster would doubtless have an accurate idea of just how much was needed in a given situation.

Ah, but you do love your bludgeoning matches, don't you?

No, I don't. Personally I find them extremely distasteful. I would prefer a more genteel debate, with assertions supported by sources and full quotations.

I quote a relevant passage from Roth (pp. 77-8) and suddenly I'm "continuing to distort Roth's views". But it is you who have distorted Roth's views by adding the phrase "in the very rare occasion that the soldiers were issued more than 5 days rations". That's a value judgement that Roth doesn't make. You have decided that a campaigning legion did not normally carry more than 5 days rations.

...actually you didn't "quote" Roth at all - you merely stated a point of view which was clearly incorrect - it was left to me to actually quote what Roth wrote, and then you referred to a page number, once again leaving it to me to quote what Roth actually wrote on that page. Your continued assertion that Roth says that two mules per contubernium was the 'norm', when it is quite apparent from his published works that this is not so, is a clear ' continuing distortion'.

Better, I think, if you HAD quoted Roth, as I did, and allow the reader to decide for themselves what he says.....

As to the occasions when more than 5 days rations are referred to, they are relatively rare, else they would not be mentioned by our sources if normal, as Roth notes here for example:

In Periocha 57, for example, he is epitomized as saying "...he compelled (each) soldier to carry thirty days' grain ( frumentum ) and seven stakes." If frumentum is taken in its normal meaning of unground grain, then this would mean a burden of 25.5 kg. (56 lbs.), which in addition to arms, armor and equipment is an impossible burden. Various attempts have been made to explain these texts. The use of the word "compelled" indicates an extensive measure. While Livy is writing in the Imperial period, he is referring to a much earlier period, and his evidence cannot in be used to estimate the first century soldier's loads and military practice.

( my emphasis)

I haven't 'decided' anything at all......Josephus tells us that the Legionary of his day carried 3 days rations at a time, ( a figure fairly common in many pre-industrial age armies) and this agrees well with Roth's calculations of what the contubernium and its mule carried - see my quotation of him ante - and he notes that the contubernium and its single mule could carry up to five days rations, and notes that by adding a second mule, a further 11 days rations could be carried, bringing the total up to two weeks. That Roth regards adding a second mule as abnormal is shown by his constant reference to "the unit mule" and suchlike.....
But I've no wish to argue the point, given that we agree, as does almost everyone, that the no. and type of pack-animals probably varied considerably from Army to Army, campaign to campaign.

Can we agree, at least, that what is apparent from Roth's published work is that the contubernium and its mule could carry the three days rations that Josephus says were normally carried, that a second mule would be needed to carry up to two weeks rations, and any more would have to be carried in the supply train, or by having even more pack-animals with the legion, despite this falling back on the "universal cliche" again?

I, on the other hand, concede that we have no idea how many days' rations a campaigning legion might carry.

Can we take it as read, and that I agree with you that :
"We cannot know for certain....etc etc". That way you won't have to keep stating the obvious.

Incidently, if you do the arithmetic, you will see that the numbers of animals I gave earlier for the Legion were on the assumption of two mules per conubernium.

But the original question, which (in best debating tradition) you have managed to bulldoze out of the way, was: "is there any consensus about how many animals a single legion had?" The correct answer is "no, there is no consensus".

I haven't 'bulldozed' anything out of the way, even if I did digress into a discussion of numbers.
I think we can undoubtedly agree the numbers of animals varied from occasion to occasion, campaign to campaign. But there is close to a consensus on what might constitute a 'norm'. According to Adams, 1976, p. 224, there were 500-600 mules per legion, but this was in addition to wagons and carts. (i.e. he based on one per contubernium) Kromayer-Veith, 1929, p. 394, writing of Caesarean times, postulates that the legionary train had one mule per ten men, plus an extra one for each centurion, to carry equipment. (again, he based on one per contubernium). In addition, he assumes that a second animal carried circa 80 kg. of grain, and adding in those for legionary artillery, he comes to a total of 1,200 to 1,500 for a legion of 4,000. ( a very similar total to Roth's calculations) Connolly, Roman Army 1975 p.53 also gives one per contubernium. So does Webster, 1969 p.132. Engels, 1978, p. 17 estimates 800 pack-animals per legion for gear alone (one mule per 6 or 7 soldiers i.e contubernium, depending on the size of the legion). So there is close to a consensus that the base figure was one per contubernium, with an additional mule to carry rations to extend the Army's immediate supply from 3-5 days , to two weeks. Note that this latter could ONLY occur in situations where there was ample pasturage for the animals ( for the Army certainly couldn't carry fodder for the animals for two weeks).
Significantly, our sources refer to shortage of fodder more than any other logistics factor when difficulties are discussed, as Roth noted, and it was this 'fodder factor' more than any other which made ancient warfare 'seasonal'....

If there were, you wouldn't need to quote a daily variance of 6,000 kg of fodder!

...the reason for the large variance is that I stuck to 'ball-park' figures, without distinguishing between different animal's needs ( Horses,Mules, Camels and Donkeys all have differing daily needs), nor did I specify a particular circumstance or region etc....the idea was merely to give an order of magnitude, and you will observe that I referred readers to Roth for detail....