08-28-2016, 12:58 PM (This post was last modified: 08-29-2016, 12:18 PM by Marcel Frederik Schwarze.)
(08-25-2016, 10:44 PM). Nathan Ross Wrote: there must have been some sort of 10/10 division or difference within them, based on the numbers of standard bearers -
indeed, there is nothing else I can add.
perhaps the information regarding the number of optiones is interesting as well, which were little more than administration-chiefs of the centuriae (here for Perge also just 10 each, which is in my opinion a very important hint regarding the internal structure).
P.Münch. 1 2 (from Elephantine) names the officers of the ἀριθμοῦ Ἐλεφαντίνης (Numerus Elephantinum or Elephantinorum). The officer Σερήνου is ὀρδινάριοι (ordinarius) καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ πρίορες (and prior) - his colleague Μακαρίου was ὀρδιναρίου καὶ ἀδιούτορος (ordinarius and adiutor). That additional tasks were given into the hands of certain officers is not new.
In the case of my "prior" I cannot read more than that he was "the First". The first of all ordinarii? The priores were senior officers. Generally also referred to as principes or priores.
(See Gascou, Deux inscriptions byzantines de Haute-Égypte, esp. p. 338.).
--------
edit:
There is an interesting and important note in the Strategicon regarding the primani and secundi of the contuberni. I have written a long text here in this post. But I think that this is another topic and therefore I have deleted some of my sentences. Attached to this post is an unfinished page from my next work. As said, it's not finished, but it gives a good first view about the internal structure of the contuberni. If somebody has a question regarding this issue please don't hesitate to ask.
--------
That a centurion (or centenarius) was still deployed in front (of course I mean the centurion with his complete centuria) - and the other centurion was a "secundus" (or posterior) and stood behind or beside him - cannot be provided by sources and is unlikely for this advanced era. I mean we have really enough papyri connecting the ordinarii with the priores or even principes. So, on the other hand there is to my knowledge no papyrus connecting an ordinarius to a "secundus" or something similar.
I don't want write an essay about it now. But I think that a kind of "pairing" goes hand-in-hand with a kind of internal hierarchy (except we consider prior and posterior as equals). One centurio is inferior and the other one is superior. Such a traditions/customs should result in a different payment of those officers, which cannot be observed in papyri regarding the late 5th, 6th or even ealry 7th century. Also the 20 officers from our Perge-Legion get the same anonna. I love the idea that there was still a kind of "pairing", but as said, it's very unlikely for the time-era in question.
In the first moment one could think that there were 20 centuriae. But against this opinion speaks the fact regarding the optiones and standard-bearers - also the high ammount of cavalry. The rank of the old cavalry-decurio was abolished, however, we have more than one example of a new cavalry-centenarius. I think it is plausible to a certain degree that infantry- and cavalry-ordinarii get indeed the same salary ... not least since the importance of cavalry has increased.
...
@ Dear Steven, you can of course enlarge the infantry contubernium in my schematic from 8 to 10 soldiers. A file hasn't necessarily just 8 men. The Strategicon teach us that for some troops 10 is possible as well - albeit this is just valid for cavalry and psiloi (armaturae). If you calculate 10 men for a contubernium (a file) then you have a troop of 1000 men infantry. This depends on how many soldiers you calculate for the munifices (tirones) at the end of slab C.
(08-28-2016, 12:58 PM)Marcel Frederik Schwarze Wrote: The rank of the old cavalry-decurio was abolished, however, we have more than one example of a new cavalry-centenarius.
Also, I think, an ordinarius commanding the equites promoti of a legion in a Egyptian papyrus of c.300.
It's inconvenient that we don't have two grades of ordinarii on the Perge list - it would make things just a bit easier! But as we do not, I'd agree that they must have been at the same level but commanding differing complements of men.
Fascinating stuff - will there be an English translation of your book, do you know, Marcel?
(08-17-2016, 11:32 PM)Marcel Frederik Schwarze Wrote: The Cod. Iust. clearly shows that basically and technically all old troop designations (e.g. cohors, legio, ala etc.) were still existing in the 6th century - however, the generic term for all units was the αριθμος or numerus in latin.
I just wanted to add a quick note to this.
There's an odd line in Sozomen's Ecclesiastical History (I.8) about the provision of Christian worship for soldiers. It reads: "From that period [i.e of Constantine] the Roman Legions, which now were called by their number, provided each its own tent, with attendant priests and deacons."
'Now were called by their number' seems obscure, as they always had been! - could this be a faulty translation of 'which now were called numeri'? In which case, this might be evidence for the change in unit nomenclature going back to the early 4th century.
Also, these priests and deacons manning the prayer tent might perhaps be the Perge 'clerici vel deputati'!
(10-01-2016, 10:36 AM)Nathan Ross Wrote: There's an odd line in Sozomen's Ecclesiastical History (I.8) about the provision of Christian worship for soldiers. It reads: "From that period [i.e of Constantine] the Roman Legions, which now were called by their number, provided each its own tent, with attendant priests and deacons." "Now were called by their number" seems obscure, as they always had been! - could this be a faulty translation of 'which now were called numeri'? In which case, this might be evidence for the change in unit nomenclature going back to the early 4th century.
You have indeed found a faulty translation. The original Greek is perfectly clear:
The underlined portion can be translated "the Roman legions, which were now called arithmoi" (or, in Latin, numeri). Whether Sozomen is right or not is another question.
(10-01-2016, 12:45 PM)D B Campbell Wrote: "the Roman legions, which were now called arithmoi" (or, in Latin, numeri).
Hooray! Thanks.
Not that we really needed Sozomen to confirm it for us, and he's not the most reliable of witnesses to the military terminology of the earlier 4th century anyway... But further support for the blending of different unit types into one designation is always useful.
(10-01-2016, 10:36 AM)Nathan Ross Wrote: There's an odd line in Sozomen's Ecclesiastical History (I.8) about the provision of Christian worship for soldiers. It reads: "From that period [i.e of Constantine] the Roman Legions, which now were called by their number, provided each its own tent, with attendant priests and deacons." "Now were called by their number" seems obscure, as they always had been! - could this be a faulty translation of 'which now were called numeri'? In which case, this might be evidence for the change in unit nomenclature going back to the early 4th century.
You have indeed found a faulty translation. The original Greek is perfectly clear:
The underlined portion can be translated "the Roman legions, which were now called arithmoi" (or, in Latin, numeri). Whether Sozomen is right or not is another question.
This serves to illustrate the danger of relying on translations. In the 'Boudica' thread, we have recently had cited a book in which the author seeks to cast doubt on Tacitus' figure for the Roman forces at the final battle by reference not only to the wording but - would you believe it? - the punctuation of the Penguin translation of the Annals.
In this case, I am even doubtful about translating tagmata as 'legions'. According to LSJ, Dionysius, Strabo and Plutarch have tagma meaning 'legion' but Polybius has it meaning 'maniple'. Zosimus refers to five tagmata totalling 6000 men (5.45.1), i.e., 1200 men each, and then to six tagmata totalling 4000 men (6.8.2), i.e., 666 men each. This leads Ridley to translate the first as 'legions' and the second as 'cohorts'. As I understand it, tagma just means 'a body of soldiers' of unspecified number, so relating it to a particular type of unit in the Roman army may be too specific. It seems that Sozomen may have simply replaced one generic term with another.
Michael King Macdona
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
(10-02-2016, 07:55 PM)Renatus Wrote: I am even doubtful about translating tagmata as 'legions'... Sozomen may have simply replaced one generic term with another.
Ah, good point! However, he does seem to be implying that a tagma which had previously been called something else was later known as an arithmos...
Since the auxilia units were apparently always called numeri (or so the earliest epigraphic references to them would seem to suggest), it's perhaps more likely that he's talking about the legions (or legion detachments) here.
But you're quite right, it is all a little hazy...
Again we conclude that the Romans had a devilish way of using terms that confuse us today and make translators take unwise steps to make sense of it all... confusion us even more.
Robert Vermaat MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Quote:Zosimus refers to five tagmata totalling 6000 men (5.45.1), i.e., 1200 men each, and then to six tagmata totalling 4000 men (6.8.2), i.e., 666 men each. This leads Ridley to translate the first as 'legions' and the second as 'cohorts'. As I understand it, tagma just means 'a body of soldiers' of unspecified number, so relating it to a particular type of unit in the Roman army may be too specific. It seems that Sozomen may have simply replaced one generic term with another.
Sozomen refers to 6 arithmoi totalling 4000 men in the original text, IIRC.
(10-03-2016, 10:31 AM)Flavivs Aetivs Wrote: Sozomen refers to 6 arithmoi totalling 4000 men in the original text, IIRC.
You're right. It is Sozomen, 9.8. The passage underlined beneath translates as 'six arithmoi of about 4000 soldiers'. The infamous translation says only, 'an army of 4000 men'.
Michael King Macdona
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
I have a complete translation of Sozomen in PDF if anyone is interested.
My "Late Roman Army" I posted above is a draft but I went over the known sources briefly as justification for numbers for my reconstruction of the Notitia Dignitatum.
Prof. Fatih Onur has been in contact with me to advise that the published article is now available in Gephyra 14, 2016, pages 133-212. You can read the summary here:
It will make interesting reading given that the slabs stood as a 'snapshot' as it were in time of the official grades and numbers of the a legion in the time of Anastasius.
