Barracks for 120 cavalry of a legion

[JeffF]

I've read that the 120 cavalrymen of the early imperial legion were accounted for on the rolls of the centuries (infantry) that they belonged to. Does this mean that they remained in the barracks of those centuries? Does the archaeological evidence of legion fortresses show any evidence of seperate barracks for these 120 troopers?

Thanks,

Jeff

[D B Campbell]

I've read that the 120 cavalrymen of the early imperial legion were accounted for on the rolls of the centuries (infantry) that they belonged to.

Yup. That seems to be what's happening.

Does this mean that they remained in the barracks of those centuries?

That's one theory (and one that I quite like). Richmond thought that he had found two extra barrack blocks in the First Cohort at Inchtuthil, which he assigned to the legionary cavalry. But his "keyhole surgery" excavation technique didn't discover the soakaway pits that would've been definite evidence of this.

Does the archaeological evidence of legion fortresses show any evidence of seperate barracks for these 120 troopers?

Not that I'm aware of, Jeff. Sorry.

[Vindex]

Does the archaeological evidence of legion fortresses show any evidence of seperate barracks for these 120 troopers?

Not that I'm aware of, Jeff. Sorry.[/quote]

So where were they I wonder? 120 horses would take up quite a bit of room even if they were rotated through stabling according to duites.

[JeffF]

Often books cite the total numbers for a legion as 5240: 9 x 480 for cohorts II-X, 800 for I Cohort and 120 for legionary equites. Since these cavalry were still part of the centuries shouldn't these men already be accounted for in the total of 5120 (total authorized men for the cohorts)?

Thanks,

Jeff

[D B Campbell]

Since these cavalry were still part of the centuries shouldn't these men already be accounted for in the total of 5120 (total authorized men for the cohorts)?

Yes, that's certainly logical. My own view (I think derived from David Breeze's work on the principales -- I can't quite remember) is that legionaries promoted to the cavalry remained with their original century. The alternative view (again, I'm not sure who suggested this) is that the cavalrymen were assigned to particular centuries. Either way, they ought to figure in your grand total.

If they are still bunking with their original squad, we need to find somewhere to stable their horses. If they have their own barrack block (as Richmond suggested at Inchtuthil), presumably the horses shared their accommodation. Sadly, there's no evidence, one way or another (as far as I know -- maybe someone knows different?).

[Vindex]

Nope no evidence so far.

But later cavalry(up to the 18th Century) lived above their horses when in barracks and in certain instances (19/20th century)the horses could possibly have lived above the men! (admittedly non military in King's Cross, London but Fenham Barracks in Newcastle where even the riding arena was allegedly on the first floor)

But where is all the grazing for the horses? And if no grazing, who gathered all the fodder? Was it the troopers' responsibility or were the locals taxed in hay and grain (which could account for a certain amount of aisled builings at villas...a sort of early tithe barn eg villa at Deerton at Teynham in Kent and "supply" bases such as Cunetio?)

[Paullus Scipio]

Duncan wrote:-

JeffF wrote:
Does this mean that they remained in the barracks of those centuries?

That's one theory (and one that I quite like). Richmond thought that he had found two extra barrack blocks in the First Cohort at Inchtuthil, which he assigned to the legionary cavalry. But his "keyhole surgery" excavation technique didn't discover the soakaway pits that would've been definite evidence of this.
JeffF wrote:
Does the archaeological evidence of legion fortresses show any evidence of seperate barracks for these 120 troopers?

Not that I'm aware of, Jeff. Sorry.

.......Yes, that's certainly logical. My own view (I think derived from David Breeze's work on the principales -- I can't quite remember) is that legionaries promoted to the cavalry remained with their original century. The alternative view (again, I'm not sure who suggested this) is that the cavalrymen were assigned to particular centuries. Either way, they ought to figure in your grand total.

If they are still bunking with their original squad, we need to find somewhere to stable their horses. If they have their own barrack block (as Richmond suggested at Inchtuthil), presumably the horses shared their accommodation. Sadly, there's no evidence, one way or another (as far as I know -- maybe someone knows different?).

There is indeed little evidence....not surprising since no Legionary Fortress has been completely excavated - a very expensive proposition. The picture is further complicated by the fact that 'soakaway' pits are not always located in stables, and that more often than not, men and horses were stabled separately ( more information can be found in "Roman Forts" by Anne Johnson, which although concerned with Auxiliary forts contains much information on both barracks and stables).

While it is true that apparently the Legionary cavalry troopers remained "on the books" of their original centuries, from a practical military point of view it seems highly improbable, that they would be accommodated in their original centurial barrack blocks, for that would mean them being scattered all over a huge camp, and thus virtually impossible to find Legionary Gaius Julius Aelianus when it was his turn to take a message because he belonged to a century on the far side of the camp a long way from the stables....equally, it would very difficult to muster an 'emergency turnout' of the three Turmae were they to be scattered through the vast legionary camp.

Practically speaking, it would be best to have them housed together, separate from their 'parent' centuries, with their horses nearby ( whether jointly or separately stabled) and near to Headquarters......so I would take a different view to that quoted above, at least in respect of whether they were housed with their 'parent' centuries or not, and while it is difficult to generalise about numbers ( since Legions were often understrength, or, rarely, overstrength) I tend to side with those that think cavalry, immunes and other 'supernumaries' fell within the 'paper' strength, for that has tended to be the experience of most armies since....

[mcbishop]

The situation is further complicated by the fact that all legions of the Principate seem to have had at least one ala in very close association - most in a neighbouring fort (I could rattle off a long and boring list, but think Carnuntum/Petronell) but some actually incorporated within the base (perhaps explaining the fluctuation in sizes - unlike coffee, fortresses tend to be 'standard' and 'small', never 'standard' and 'big' in the eyes of size-obsessed scholars). It is clear that legio II Traiana Fortis included an ala in its fortress at Nicopolis (AE 1948, 120; CHLA 42, 1207); we also know of auxiliary-style barracks in the Koenenlager at Neuss and, probably, in Novae too. But when you ask 'what would legionary cavalry accommodation look like?' we have to say we do not know; equally if we do start to spot stables in a fortress (and their identification is only recent in auxiliary forts, so they are a comparatively new meme), it need not belong to said legionary cavalry. All rather frustrating...

We have to remember when discussing numbers that, back in 1975, von Petrikovits tended to favour all supernumaries being additional to legionary strength (hence his sometimes extreme efforts to squeeze them in to non-barrack buildings, even proposing putting the horses in the tabernae that lined the main streets), whereas Breeze (and I think, like Duncan, I agree with him) favours their incorporation within the total theoretical strength. There has certainly been some suggestion that any additional rooms in barracks could have been used for principales and these legionary riders (the 'Kopfbauten' at Lambaesis - at the other end to the centurion's block - were one such example of additional unexplained accommodation).

Mike Bishop

[Paullus Scipio]

....And then of course there is the question of where those 'invisibles', the 'calones/servants/slaves' were quartered ( who needed to be near their masters).

There is a suggestion in at least one case, IIRC, that 'attics' or 'lofts' were used for this purpose, I believe.....and of course we do not know ( in most cases) whether buildings were one or more stories from the 'archeological footprint' of their foundations. The Praetorian Barracks in Rome, for example, are believed to have been multi-story.......

[M. Demetrius]

So where were they I wonder? 120 horses would take up quite a bit of room

I don't have the book handy, but Polybius says that horses were put in the area outside of the tents, but inside of the ditch berm in one place. The ditches he mentions are "a javelin throw away from the tents". That makes sense, and gives a reasonable place to put horses outside of the people camp, but it sure is a lot more ditch to dig.

[Vindex]

So where were they I wonder? 120 horses would take up quite a bit of room

I don't have the book handy, but Polybius says that horses were put in the area outside of the tents, but inside of the ditch berm in one place. The ditches he mentions are "a javelin throw away from the tents". That makes sense, and gives a reasonable place to put horses outside of the people camp, but it sure is a lot more ditch to dig.

Thank you! Makes sense for a temporary encampment where you would want to keep the horses inside any defensive perimeter. But in a fixed legionary camp?

[JeffF]

RE Cavalry troopers scattered among infantr barracks.

It would not be much of a problem. Certain Buccinator or Cornicen calls would likely have been used to rally the men when needed. During routine days in garrison no doubt a duty roster would be used to ensure that a sufficient number of riders and horses were available for routine tasks like messenger duty. In the field or on campaign it would be certain that the 120 horsemen would be detached from the centuries to act as a single unit but this would not be necessary in the home fortress.

[Paullus Scipio]

RE Cavalry troopers scattered among infantr barracks.

It would not be much of a problem. Certain Buccinator or Cornicen calls would likely have been used to rally the men when needed. During routine days in garrison no doubt a duty roster would be used to ensure that a sufficient number of riders and horses were available for routine tasks like messenger duty. In the field or on campaign it would be certain that the 120 horsemen would be detached from the centuries to act as a single unit but this would not be necessary in the home fortress.

Not much of a problem??......You are kidding, of course ?? If not, I believe you may well be underestimating the enormity of the task.....:?

We are talking about a fortress the size of a respectable sized town , with a walled perimeter of over 7 miles/11.26 km, an area of 53 acres/21.5 hectares, with many 'streets' and 'avenues',roughly close to one thousand 'apartments', stables, granaries, workshops and a population of thousands, not to mention animals......

The noise level will have been routinely pretty high, but even assuming that a trumpet could be heard, how long do you think it would take scattered soldiers from all over the place to get to stables, then assemble at headquarters, even for routine training? Hours?

In my military service, I have performed similar exercises, and even using radios and modern vehicles it is quite a big deal to assemble a company of soldiers scattered over such an urban area!

Even if this wasn't a problem, then for disciplinary reasons, the troops would be kept 'in hand' in one location. No Legate, on a mission, and asking the senior Decurion to assemble an escort, would accept an answer from the senior Decurion of "E..rr..r, right Sir! I'm not exactly sure where any of my troopers are at present, could you give me a couple of hours to round them up?":wink: :lol:
( Not to mention considering the numbers of times a day they might need to be assembled and dismissed between roll-call, stable duty, horse feeding duty, horse grooming duty, training, arms cleaning, provide escorts for various Officers , mounting a guard somewhere, relieving said guard etc etc........)

Don't you think, if you were in that situation, that you'd have them located/quartered in one convenient place, probably relatively close to HQ ?

[D B Campbell]

RE Cavalry troopers scattered among infantry barracks. It would not be much of a problem. Certain Buccinator or Cornicen calls would likely have been used to rally the men when needed. During routine days in garrison no doubt a duty roster would be used to ensure that a sufficient number of riders and horses were available for routine tasks like messenger duty. In the field or on campaign it would be certain that the 120 horsemen would be detached from the centuries to act as a single unit but this would not be necessary in the home fortress.

Agreed. Simply because their accommodation is dispersed doesn't mean that they wandered aimlessly around the fortress every day. The tabularium equitum (legionis) (record office of the legionary cavalry) at Lambaesis (fortunately, a mass of inscriptional evidence survives from this fortress) was perhaps the kind of place where daily orders could be posted and tabs could be kept on each cavalryman's activities.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Based on my own military experience, when I was based on a Royal Navy vessal my mess-mates were all from our branch of the service, as were all the other messes on board ship. However, when we were on land bases our messes contained ship mates from a variety of branches. If we were needed then a tannoy would call us to our stations. The Romans would of course not have had tannoy's but would have had musical signal systems where different notes or calls would summond various branches of their army to arms.