Where did they keep the mules in garrison?

[Paralus]

Indeed. She, though, is not a good example: she had Clint Eastwood. How many Eastwoods to a Roman Legion?

4-6,000?

Not ever that many - M Demetrius is quite correct. The Eastwoods of the Roman legion were a very small elite group: the dynamitius. They were accoutered in dark sunhats (somewhat similar to the Macedonian style), wore no armour aside from the thick ponchos Mexicanus and were armed with cigars and sticks of the eponymous explosive substance.

[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....

[D B Campbell]

..., wore no armour aside from the thick ponchos Mexicanus ...

What about the cunningly concealed pectoral under the poncho?! :wink:

[Paralus]

..., wore no armour aside from the thick ponchos Mexicanus ...

What about the cunningly concealed pectoral under the poncho?! :wink:

That, of course, is a matter of opinion. Modern iconographical evidence - in *panavision* - would seem to suggest (now there's a historiographical "cliche") that the dynamitius indeed had a pectoral under the defining ponchos mexicanus. Debate rages as to whether this was a tit-o-thorax (shaped as the latter day cigar container worn in a pec-pocket) or the coltus which was worn at the hip and disguised by the ponchos. Either way, the Eastwoods definitely wore jerkins and greaves of leather.

Unfortunately no tombs have yet been excavated to prove any of these theories...

And that, all in all, is a good thing.

[size=85:ulkqesdc]"We ain't like that anymore..."
I don't deserve to die like this...
"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it".[/size]

[Robert]

Excuse me, guys, but the original question was were they kept the mules, not how many mules were kept and who is better at interpreting Roth and slapping quotes around. Now, Clint Eastwood relied on a .45 magnum, the most powerfull handgun in the world, so the question then would seem to be, "Do you feel lucky, punk?" . Or just lay your peckers out on a table (perish the thought, sorry ladies). Even at one mule per contuberia, it is still a lot of pack animals and it would be nice to return to the original question and see if we can work out where these were kept.

So I will start by making an observation which may be valid (or may not :roll: ). In a legion (or cohort or numerus or vexilatio) on campaign, it would make good sense to keep the animals close in case of raiding. This could include staking them inside the defended perimeter. Lose your pack animals and you lose an important means of transport to proceed with the campaign. In a stationary legion (or blah blah) in a more secured area, one would expect a wider range of keeping the beasts, with possible paddocks or corals built in the outlands.

Could we take it from there?

[D B Campbell]

In a legion on campaign, it would make good sense to keep the animals close in case of raiding. This could include staking them inside the defended perimeter. Lose your pack animals and you lose an important means of transport to proceed with the campaign. In a stationary legion (or blah blah) in a more secured area, one would expect a wider range of keeping the beasts, with possible paddocks or corals built in the outlands.

Well said, Robert. In Hyginus' marching camp, each tent has a 9 x 10 foot area in front, iumentis ("for the pack mules"). And the permanent legionary fortresses seem to have extensive prata ("meadowlands"), which could support all manner of livestock.

[Paralus]

Excuse me, guys, but the original question was were they kept the mules, not how many mules were kept and who is better at interpreting Roth and slapping quotes around. Now, Clint Eastwood relied on a .45 magnum, the most powerfull handgun in the world, so the question then would seem to be, "Do you feel lucky, punk?" .

The Eastwoods, in later Imperial times, were aparrently armed with the magnus - a weapon so powerful it could blow your gallic helmet clean off. By this time they were rather insubordinate and were prone to telling Centurions to use their scutum as an four point suppository.

Where they kept their mules is a question I might bat on to Sister Sarah.

Enough levity...

[M. Demetrius]

I've read, I think in Polybius, a description of how the trench/berm around a camp was a javelin throw away from the tents, and that area was where they kept the horses for the cavalry, and presumably the mules also. Assuming a javelin can be thrown about 30 meters, that's lots of room for many animals.

[Paullus Scipio]

D. Campbell wrote:

In Hyginus' marching camp, each tent has a 9 x 10 foot area in front, iumentis ("for the pack mules")

..I am happy to say I agree entirely with Duncan - our only written source for this is De Metatione Castrorum once ascribed to Hyginus, but now usually referred to as "pseudo-Hyginus". While it seems to be a compendium of practices from previous times, much of it can be confirmed from Archaeology going right back to the practices in the time of Polybius ( e.g. at Numantia). Each tent occupied roughly ten feet, and the tents were built around a large "common area" ( conservantibus) in a "u" shape. ( This varied in size depending on the time).According to 'Pseudo-Hyginus', in front of each tent was an area 5 ft deep, called the arma, used primarily for the storage of arms and armour ( there was no room in the tent, which could only sleep six of the men at a time - the other two being 'on duty'), and beyond this an area 9 ft deep, as Duncan says, called the Iumenta (lit; pack-animals). Livy also mentions the practice of tethering animals (XXVI.6.), when enemy elephants get into the camp, and the animals panic and break their tethers.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Actually there is a very good book out there which I was reading which covers alot of this.
I can't recall which one at the moment though, but the image you describe of the U-shape for the tents ,and also as dave says the spacing for the berm to edge of encampment, has been playing in my mind when reading this thread.

[Tim Edwards]

Just thinking outside the box, I wonder if phosphate analysis of soil samples in and around fort sites would tell us where there were concentrations of animals?

Surely this must have been done before.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Apparently it has been used to identify the location where horses were kept, i.e. in the same building as the cavelrymen....
so it has been done?

[D B Campbell]

Surely this must have been done before.

Across a 20ha+ camp site? Too expensive.

Apparently it has been used to identify the location where horses were kept, i.e. in the same building as the cavelrymen.

Of course, that's in a permanent fort site, Byron. You'll find details in my Roman Auxiliary Forts book (but not in the very out-of-date fort books by Roger Wilson and Anne Johnston, that were advertised on another thread).

Archaeologists recognised the tell-tale patches of discolouration, and were able to analyse these localised deposits. Much more difficult across the bare expanse of a marching camp.

EDIT: Checking back to p.1, I see that we have been going around in circles. I'd forgotten that we already dealt with the marching camps and had moved on to the permanent forts! So, although the problem of accommodating cavalry horses seems to have been solved (i.e. they were in the barracks beside their riders), the whereabouts of any ancillary beasts is still a matter of conjecture. But each permanent post had its own "territory" where animals could have been grazing.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Apparently it has been used to identify the location where horses were kept, i.e. in the same building as the cavelrymen.

Of course, that's in a permanent fort site, Byron. You'll find details in my Roman Auxiliary Forts book (but not in the very out-of-date fort books by Roger Wilson and Anne Johnston, that were advertised on another thread).
.

That would be where I read it, thanks for the jog...

[D B Campbell]

That would be where I read it, thanks for the jog...

No problem. Archaeology marches on, expanding our knowledge and challenging assumptions from 20 or 30 years ago.

I simply can't identify with comments like: "I wasn't aware the Romans were currently carrying out renovations to their Forts to warrant an up-to-date revision". I'm sure most people realise that knowledge expands with continuing research. The horses-in-barracks was probably the main thing that I wanted to emphasize -- handbooks like Johnson's, that you might find in your local library, pre-date this discovery. Another is the role of fort annexes -- Johnson didn't even mention these important features, which may be relevant to a discussion of where any livestock could be corralled. (And while we're reviewing Johnson, she skims over the bathhouse in three paragraphs, one diagram and one photo -- I think this interesting structure deserves a longer discussion; and I think her explanation of the niches at Chesters is wrong in any case.) And another "up-to-date" topic, especially as our female colleagues become more interested in what has always been a male-dominated subject, might be whether there were women in Roman forts; Johnson never mentions this.

Inevitably, the bulk of our knowledge of forts comes from Britain and Germany, with over a century of research in these countries. The Osprey book has tried to integrate more recent discoveries from (e.g.) Hungary and Rumania, which are more difficult to research (as explained on p. 62). And of course Johnson never touched these, nor the splendid forts of Jordan and north Africa, that fall beyond the scope of her book. But these are all elements that go towards creating an authoritative and up-to-date overview, and have perhaps been overlooked by people who haven't given the subject much thought, or who are more comfortable with the out-of-date researches of the 1980s.

I guess there are always those who will judge a book by its cover, by its publisher or by its size, when really they should read it before passing judgement.