03-24-2014, 03:14 AM
Nathan wrote:
It's possible that a mixed detachment could be referred to as a numerus, but the term more usually connotes an individual unit - some auxilia units being actually called by that name, for example the numerus batavorum and numerus mattiacorum that appear on the Concordia inscriptions.
Thanks for that. I will keep that in mind.
Nathan Ross wrote:
The correct term is scutarii, as found in Ammianus (e.g. XXVI.4 - scholae primae Scutariorum), and as Adrian further says, was a unit of the guard, probably cavalry.
Now I’m getting confused. As you stated the correct translation for targeteers should be scutarii, but now it’s a unit of guard, probably cavalry. Here is the number of references of targeteers taken from the Rolfe’s translation.
Ammianus Targeteers (14 7 9), (14 10), (14 11 11 - tribune of the targeteers), (15 4 8), (16 4 1), (16 11 6), (16 12 2), (17 10 5 - tribune of the targeteers), (19 11 16 - tribune of the targeteers), (20 2 5 - tribune of the targeteers), (20 2 3 targeteers most active), (20 13 13), (21 11 1), (22 11 1 second corps of targeteers), (25 10 8 second division of targeteers), (26 1 4 tribune of the first division of the targeteers; second division of the targeteers), (30 1 11 tribune of targeteers with 1000 archers), (31 8 9 tribune of the targeteers), (31 12 16 archers and targeteers).
Most of the above would apply to infantry, not cavalry. I suspect the above are all light-armed infantry. At present I have finished my research on the size and organisation of the legion and the cavalry so now I am concentrating on the composition of the troops within a legion.
It's possible that a mixed detachment could be referred to as a numerus, but the term more usually connotes an individual unit - some auxilia units being actually called by that name, for example the numerus batavorum and numerus mattiacorum that appear on the Concordia inscriptions.
Thanks for that. I will keep that in mind.
Nathan Ross wrote:
The correct term is scutarii, as found in Ammianus (e.g. XXVI.4 - scholae primae Scutariorum), and as Adrian further says, was a unit of the guard, probably cavalry.
Now I’m getting confused. As you stated the correct translation for targeteers should be scutarii, but now it’s a unit of guard, probably cavalry. Here is the number of references of targeteers taken from the Rolfe’s translation.
Ammianus Targeteers (14 7 9), (14 10), (14 11 11 - tribune of the targeteers), (15 4 8), (16 4 1), (16 11 6), (16 12 2), (17 10 5 - tribune of the targeteers), (19 11 16 - tribune of the targeteers), (20 2 5 - tribune of the targeteers), (20 2 3 targeteers most active), (20 13 13), (21 11 1), (22 11 1 second corps of targeteers), (25 10 8 second division of targeteers), (26 1 4 tribune of the first division of the targeteers; second division of the targeteers), (30 1 11 tribune of targeteers with 1000 archers), (31 8 9 tribune of the targeteers), (31 12 16 archers and targeteers).
Most of the above would apply to infantry, not cavalry. I suspect the above are all light-armed infantry. At present I have finished my research on the size and organisation of the legion and the cavalry so now I am concentrating on the composition of the troops within a legion.