05-28-2017, 02:36 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2017, 03:14 AM by Steven James.)
Marcel wrote:
first of all I belong to the group who likes the idea of long survived maniples and its tactical usage, based on the tales of Caesar, Tacitus and Josephus.
Despite the evidence, many on this forum oppose the existence of the maniple from the principate onwards. It will be interesting to see if they respond to your viewpoint in the same manner they have responded to me.
Marcel wrote:
The camp order of Hyginus is completely based upon two opposite standing centuriae. In other words, not said by Hyginus, this is called a manipulus. That a manipulus is based on centuries and tent-communities (contubernales) should be clear.
One thing I have learnt about the Roman legion is “not all that glitters is gold.” When are two centuries a maniple, and when are two centuries not a maniple? When I arrived at that question, and went back over my diagrams of the centurion command structure, the whole thing fell into place in accordance with the evidence. It was the last tick in the box, and accomplished only a month ago. It meant I had to go back to the legion of 102 BC, and change every diagram related to the centurions from 102 BC to 410 AD.
Marcel wrote:
However, I would agree - as mentioned above - that the maniples have survived much longer than believed,
Pacatus (Drepanius, Panegyric of Theodosius I) writes that “the plain was bristling with troops: cavalry sent out to the wings, light troops placed in front of the standards, cohorts arranged by maniples, legions deployed in squares, moving their columns forward at a quick pace, occupied the whole field as far as the eye could see.”
Marcel wrote:
Vegetius seems to regard manipulus as a diminutive of manus. That the term manipulus is sometimes used to point out an undefined group is also described in several other sources (Varro de ling. lat 5.88 and 6.85.) or Ovid Fasti 3.118, the latter source identifies manipulus as a handful soliers.
I believe Vegetius’ source is Cato for the 10 man maniple, which I believe belonged to the pre maniple legion when a century was divided into 10 maniples each of 10 men further organised into two manus each of 5 men, as per Varro and Ovid.
Marcel wrote:
The question remains when and why a maniple lost its tactical meaning or usage.
I don’t believe it ever did lose its tactical usage.
Marcel wrote:
I would say it has begun with the segmentation of legions and the creation of vexillations, which was indeed carried out during the imperial time. In my forthcoming book I explain the exact way when the vexillations appeared.
My first reference to a vexillation is Dionysius (9 63) for the year 462 BC, “two cohorts did not exceed 1,000 men.” I have references for the republic period as well.
Marcel wrote:
Although my work is related to the warfare of the late 5th and 6th century, this evolution is important to understand the very late roman tactics and its regiments.
Unfortunately, I found out the hard way that to understand the evolution of the Roman legion I had to go back to the Servian constitution and work my way to the fall of Rome in 410 AD.
Marcel wrote:
Also, it should be clear from inscriptions, gravestones and epigraphical findings that all centurios in all cohorts belonged to one of the 6 mentioned groups (2x hastati; 2x principes, 2xpili/triarii).
And some of these same centurions can also have the title of ordines or ordinarius.
Marcel wrote:
And meanwhile I provided enough information that they were at a certain time X generically called ordines:
I also have provided when the office of the ordo came into being, how it changed, and how it relates to the centurion’s title.
Many thanks for the rest of your posting Marcel; it was very informative and rewarding.
Duncan wrote:
There has never been any doubt about Hyginus' statement regarding the number of tents. The manuscript reads: non plus quam octonos papiliones singulae tendunt, which means "they do not pitch more than eight tents for each".
I have come across debates about that passage, but putting that aside, I accept what you say. This means the centurion’s tent had the same space as two tents, so must have been a larger tent. Hyginus has the centurion allocated to the same space as the century, but no mention of the tent being larger. However, he does mention the tents of the Praetorians as being larger, so I wonder why he did not make this known about the centurion’s tent. That is the reason behind my curiosity to explore other possibilities in the hope of throwing light on the matter.
first of all I belong to the group who likes the idea of long survived maniples and its tactical usage, based on the tales of Caesar, Tacitus and Josephus.
Despite the evidence, many on this forum oppose the existence of the maniple from the principate onwards. It will be interesting to see if they respond to your viewpoint in the same manner they have responded to me.
Marcel wrote:
The camp order of Hyginus is completely based upon two opposite standing centuriae. In other words, not said by Hyginus, this is called a manipulus. That a manipulus is based on centuries and tent-communities (contubernales) should be clear.
One thing I have learnt about the Roman legion is “not all that glitters is gold.” When are two centuries a maniple, and when are two centuries not a maniple? When I arrived at that question, and went back over my diagrams of the centurion command structure, the whole thing fell into place in accordance with the evidence. It was the last tick in the box, and accomplished only a month ago. It meant I had to go back to the legion of 102 BC, and change every diagram related to the centurions from 102 BC to 410 AD.
Marcel wrote:
However, I would agree - as mentioned above - that the maniples have survived much longer than believed,
Pacatus (Drepanius, Panegyric of Theodosius I) writes that “the plain was bristling with troops: cavalry sent out to the wings, light troops placed in front of the standards, cohorts arranged by maniples, legions deployed in squares, moving their columns forward at a quick pace, occupied the whole field as far as the eye could see.”
Marcel wrote:
Vegetius seems to regard manipulus as a diminutive of manus. That the term manipulus is sometimes used to point out an undefined group is also described in several other sources (Varro de ling. lat 5.88 and 6.85.) or Ovid Fasti 3.118, the latter source identifies manipulus as a handful soliers.
I believe Vegetius’ source is Cato for the 10 man maniple, which I believe belonged to the pre maniple legion when a century was divided into 10 maniples each of 10 men further organised into two manus each of 5 men, as per Varro and Ovid.
Marcel wrote:
The question remains when and why a maniple lost its tactical meaning or usage.
I don’t believe it ever did lose its tactical usage.
Marcel wrote:
I would say it has begun with the segmentation of legions and the creation of vexillations, which was indeed carried out during the imperial time. In my forthcoming book I explain the exact way when the vexillations appeared.
My first reference to a vexillation is Dionysius (9 63) for the year 462 BC, “two cohorts did not exceed 1,000 men.” I have references for the republic period as well.
Marcel wrote:
Although my work is related to the warfare of the late 5th and 6th century, this evolution is important to understand the very late roman tactics and its regiments.
Unfortunately, I found out the hard way that to understand the evolution of the Roman legion I had to go back to the Servian constitution and work my way to the fall of Rome in 410 AD.
Marcel wrote:
Also, it should be clear from inscriptions, gravestones and epigraphical findings that all centurios in all cohorts belonged to one of the 6 mentioned groups (2x hastati; 2x principes, 2xpili/triarii).
And some of these same centurions can also have the title of ordines or ordinarius.
Marcel wrote:
And meanwhile I provided enough information that they were at a certain time X generically called ordines:
I also have provided when the office of the ordo came into being, how it changed, and how it relates to the centurion’s title.
Many thanks for the rest of your posting Marcel; it was very informative and rewarding.
Duncan wrote:
There has never been any doubt about Hyginus' statement regarding the number of tents. The manuscript reads: non plus quam octonos papiliones singulae tendunt, which means "they do not pitch more than eight tents for each".
I have come across debates about that passage, but putting that aside, I accept what you say. This means the centurion’s tent had the same space as two tents, so must have been a larger tent. Hyginus has the centurion allocated to the same space as the century, but no mention of the tent being larger. However, he does mention the tents of the Praetorians as being larger, so I wonder why he did not make this known about the centurion’s tent. That is the reason behind my curiosity to explore other possibilities in the hope of throwing light on the matter.
