11-05-2016, 05:01 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-07-2016, 07:02 PM by Marcel Frederik Schwarze.)
I am afraid the only mathematical formula in ancient greek and roman warfare is to get a [...] σύμμετρος στρατός [...] - a symmetrical army.
Asklepiodotus II 1. + ibid VI 3.
This slogan or motto is also repeated by many other roman tacticians and military historians. Even the roman Αὔγουστος Mauricius informs us many centuries later:
[...] We need a symmetrical army if we want be the master of the enemy - however a bigger one [means: an army more huge is needed), if we want get control (φυλάττειν) about the land conquered from the enemy [...]
Strategicon VIII 2, 84
Completely without illusion and mathematical learning, Mauricius must calculate pragmatically with the troops at his disposal. With Roman stubbornness and serenity he goes on to explain that most of the troops have a different size. Therefore, Mauricius say, a way must be found to squeeze these regiments [αριθμοι] into a uniform scheme on the battlefield.
Here he again recalling the Greek military theory of symmetric warfare.
The troops arriving on the battlefield must stand side by side in their λοχοι (files/contubernia) - always 8 deep - or if 2 files fought togehter 16 deep. One file is called as primani, the other one as secundi. Always 2 files are bonded together. The leader of the first file is called decanus or decarchus, the second file leader is the lochagus (and obviously inferior as secundi compared to the primani).
All files were placed side by side - forming ad-hoc tagmata. This is a battle field module, a brick, an element temporarily created for this battle. Important here is that all 4 parts of the Mere (is composed by several tagmata) have [nealry] the same size. If a regiment is too big, he suggest to divide this αριθμος to create 2 tagmata. The first Tagma stays with the tribunus, the other one with the campiductor.
It is suggested today that the latter one could be
a) the first of the κεντυριονες for a classical old unit, following the old internal order or
b) in case of a unit following a new order it was probably the senior κεντεναριος (this was the senator)
c) the tribunus minor or primicerius (if available like in the case of the "legion" at Perge) is most likely for nearly all units a valid option.
The whole procedure was not just done to harmonize the battle formation on the day of the battle, but also to harmonize the ad hoc ranks and titles at this day was an important step to keep the communication and to promote/keep sensitivity between all the different troops.
And some last words regarding the Bandus and Numerus. I think that I told that once in one of my older posts, a Numerus (new-numerus, old legion ect) was of course subdivided by centuriae, since their leaders were evidently centuriones or centenarii. These, in turn, were divided into files/lochoi/contuberni of 7 or 8 soldiers. Cautiously one can say that there are indications that some regiments put 10 soldiers in a tent - namely armaturae (light psiloi, auxilaries) - also described in the Strategicon.
To my moddest knowledge it is not before the editing of the Praecepta Militaria of Nikephoros II Phokas that small banda of 50 mounted men each are composing a single tagma/numerus. I have to check this source once more. Even if I personally find all information worth reading, but here I'm not sure if a book written in 965 AD can deliver important details regarding the deployment of units in 480-580AD. Anyway, an interesting note is that the Arithmos can be observed until the Theme-organization broke down - but I'm sure that we find a similar graeco-roman regimental system also after 1204 AD. But that's another issue - and may be discussed by other people.
The Strategicon makes a clear distinction between banda and numeri - those terms were translated and to my disapproval mingled by G.T.Dennis in his book, which leads always to the same discussions.
In this case I have to translate an importan key-sentence by myself:
Strategicon I 3, 14-15: The moira however consists (out) of tagmata, truly (namely) composed (or formed) by the Numerus or Bandus.
[...] μοἰρα δὲ τὸ ὲκ ταγμάτων ἤτοι ὰρἰθμῶν ἤ βάνδων συγκείμενον πλῆθος [...]
I also enjoyed the last discussion regarding the terminus numerus. I miss a little bit the factor "time" in the evaluation of this topic. The Roman army stood in a process of changing circumstances.
I think it is important to take a closer look at the old barbarian numeri. Today we know that some of those numeri were created out of the old ethnic troops, just called gentiles or gentes. For a short time some of them got a new designation (called vexillatio) - followed after some years by the term "numerus". Some of those numeri were later promoted to an alae or cohors - some of the old numeri provided both kind of troops - which shows once more the procedure of promotion of whole units!
The term "numerus" was a colloquial expression at the beginning of the time period in question for all units. Somewhere during the 4th century the term get more and more access into official military documents, first time confirmed by some paragraphs in the Codex Theodosianus, and closed up in a broader sense by the Notitia Dignitatum. During that time however all units still kept their identity. In the next years until the time of Heraclius we find papyri calling the old units "numerus legionum" (αριθμος τον λεγεονων) or "numerus coortis".
The numerus became the technical description of the regiment, the second part was after ~460-480AD a classizing epitheton. It was part of tradition and proudness. Furthermore papyri show very clear that old ranks and titles were kept as well in those units (e.g. ορδιναριος or κεντυριον).
That old terms like legio, ala, cohors etc. were still known in the official military language in the 6th century is also well known by reading the Codex Iust. Just tell if sources are whished. But they are so numerous that I would now refrain from doing so. But those terms were outdated and had no (or at least no noteworthy) meaning anymore.
So, and now we come to the question about new deployed units. They were just called "numerus" because the generic official technical term for all regiments in the empire (old+new) was the numerus. It was shifted from a colloquial term to an official technical term, a procedure at the lastest esablished round about 470AD. The numerus was the only term for infantry. Exceptions were the scholae and for cavalry it was acc. the Strategicon the bandum (flag or banner). All those new deployed numeri got of course an additional name of the city where they were deployed or they got the name of the ruling emperor or his sons.
Numerus Mediolanensium, Numerus Genuensium, Numerus Iustinianus .....
Concerning the new-numeri I agree that a kind of a certain equality was aimed. There are indicators and sources suggesting a number between 500 and 530 men for infantry during the time of Justinian and later on - which is no surprise since that number fits the old cohorts. But this must remain speculative. Other new units had probably 800 men, or just 200... who knows.
But it is a fact that old and new units lived and fought side by side with their own internal hierarchy. And I can imagine very well what happened to Maurice when he saw the first time this colorful bunch on the battlefield. In some regiments the soldiers were speaking coptic, others vulgarlatin, another group a kind of thracian dialect, the rest was speaking greek... not speaking about the countless regiments of armenians and syrians. On the day of a field battle some units arrived with 1500 men, others with 120 men only. Of course there was a need to harmonize all this differences and to declare once more "latin" as the only valid language for all military units and due to the harmonized file-structure we find a tribune or a campiductor in the middle of all ad hoc tagamta. Small units provided 10 files to the right and 10 files to the left of the tribune. Bigger units provided 20 files to the left and 20 to the right (or even more). But for the enemy it was an equal looking "wall" and this system removes inequalities in the strengths of the regiments concerning the manpower.
Asklepiodotus II 1. + ibid VI 3.
This slogan or motto is also repeated by many other roman tacticians and military historians. Even the roman Αὔγουστος Mauricius informs us many centuries later:
[...] We need a symmetrical army if we want be the master of the enemy - however a bigger one [means: an army more huge is needed), if we want get control (φυλάττειν) about the land conquered from the enemy [...]
Strategicon VIII 2, 84
Completely without illusion and mathematical learning, Mauricius must calculate pragmatically with the troops at his disposal. With Roman stubbornness and serenity he goes on to explain that most of the troops have a different size. Therefore, Mauricius say, a way must be found to squeeze these regiments [αριθμοι] into a uniform scheme on the battlefield.
Here he again recalling the Greek military theory of symmetric warfare.
The troops arriving on the battlefield must stand side by side in their λοχοι (files/contubernia) - always 8 deep - or if 2 files fought togehter 16 deep. One file is called as primani, the other one as secundi. Always 2 files are bonded together. The leader of the first file is called decanus or decarchus, the second file leader is the lochagus (and obviously inferior as secundi compared to the primani).
All files were placed side by side - forming ad-hoc tagmata. This is a battle field module, a brick, an element temporarily created for this battle. Important here is that all 4 parts of the Mere (is composed by several tagmata) have [nealry] the same size. If a regiment is too big, he suggest to divide this αριθμος to create 2 tagmata. The first Tagma stays with the tribunus, the other one with the campiductor.
It is suggested today that the latter one could be
a) the first of the κεντυριονες for a classical old unit, following the old internal order or
b) in case of a unit following a new order it was probably the senior κεντεναριος (this was the senator)
c) the tribunus minor or primicerius (if available like in the case of the "legion" at Perge) is most likely for nearly all units a valid option.
The whole procedure was not just done to harmonize the battle formation on the day of the battle, but also to harmonize the ad hoc ranks and titles at this day was an important step to keep the communication and to promote/keep sensitivity between all the different troops.
And some last words regarding the Bandus and Numerus. I think that I told that once in one of my older posts, a Numerus (new-numerus, old legion ect) was of course subdivided by centuriae, since their leaders were evidently centuriones or centenarii. These, in turn, were divided into files/lochoi/contuberni of 7 or 8 soldiers. Cautiously one can say that there are indications that some regiments put 10 soldiers in a tent - namely armaturae (light psiloi, auxilaries) - also described in the Strategicon.
To my moddest knowledge it is not before the editing of the Praecepta Militaria of Nikephoros II Phokas that small banda of 50 mounted men each are composing a single tagma/numerus. I have to check this source once more. Even if I personally find all information worth reading, but here I'm not sure if a book written in 965 AD can deliver important details regarding the deployment of units in 480-580AD. Anyway, an interesting note is that the Arithmos can be observed until the Theme-organization broke down - but I'm sure that we find a similar graeco-roman regimental system also after 1204 AD. But that's another issue - and may be discussed by other people.
The Strategicon makes a clear distinction between banda and numeri - those terms were translated and to my disapproval mingled by G.T.Dennis in his book, which leads always to the same discussions.
In this case I have to translate an importan key-sentence by myself:
Strategicon I 3, 14-15: The moira however consists (out) of tagmata, truly (namely) composed (or formed) by the Numerus or Bandus.
[...] μοἰρα δὲ τὸ ὲκ ταγμάτων ἤτοι ὰρἰθμῶν ἤ βάνδων συγκείμενον πλῆθος [...]
I also enjoyed the last discussion regarding the terminus numerus. I miss a little bit the factor "time" in the evaluation of this topic. The Roman army stood in a process of changing circumstances.
I think it is important to take a closer look at the old barbarian numeri. Today we know that some of those numeri were created out of the old ethnic troops, just called gentiles or gentes. For a short time some of them got a new designation (called vexillatio) - followed after some years by the term "numerus". Some of those numeri were later promoted to an alae or cohors - some of the old numeri provided both kind of troops - which shows once more the procedure of promotion of whole units!
The term "numerus" was a colloquial expression at the beginning of the time period in question for all units. Somewhere during the 4th century the term get more and more access into official military documents, first time confirmed by some paragraphs in the Codex Theodosianus, and closed up in a broader sense by the Notitia Dignitatum. During that time however all units still kept their identity. In the next years until the time of Heraclius we find papyri calling the old units "numerus legionum" (αριθμος τον λεγεονων) or "numerus coortis".
The numerus became the technical description of the regiment, the second part was after ~460-480AD a classizing epitheton. It was part of tradition and proudness. Furthermore papyri show very clear that old ranks and titles were kept as well in those units (e.g. ορδιναριος or κεντυριον).
That old terms like legio, ala, cohors etc. were still known in the official military language in the 6th century is also well known by reading the Codex Iust. Just tell if sources are whished. But they are so numerous that I would now refrain from doing so. But those terms were outdated and had no (or at least no noteworthy) meaning anymore.
So, and now we come to the question about new deployed units. They were just called "numerus" because the generic official technical term for all regiments in the empire (old+new) was the numerus. It was shifted from a colloquial term to an official technical term, a procedure at the lastest esablished round about 470AD. The numerus was the only term for infantry. Exceptions were the scholae and for cavalry it was acc. the Strategicon the bandum (flag or banner). All those new deployed numeri got of course an additional name of the city where they were deployed or they got the name of the ruling emperor or his sons.
Numerus Mediolanensium, Numerus Genuensium, Numerus Iustinianus .....
Concerning the new-numeri I agree that a kind of a certain equality was aimed. There are indicators and sources suggesting a number between 500 and 530 men for infantry during the time of Justinian and later on - which is no surprise since that number fits the old cohorts. But this must remain speculative. Other new units had probably 800 men, or just 200... who knows.
But it is a fact that old and new units lived and fought side by side with their own internal hierarchy. And I can imagine very well what happened to Maurice when he saw the first time this colorful bunch on the battlefield. In some regiments the soldiers were speaking coptic, others vulgarlatin, another group a kind of thracian dialect, the rest was speaking greek... not speaking about the countless regiments of armenians and syrians. On the day of a field battle some units arrived with 1500 men, others with 120 men only. Of course there was a need to harmonize all this differences and to declare once more "latin" as the only valid language for all military units and due to the harmonized file-structure we find a tribune or a campiductor in the middle of all ad hoc tagamta. Small units provided 10 files to the right and 10 files to the left of the tribune. Bigger units provided 20 files to the left and 20 to the right (or even more). But for the enemy it was an equal looking "wall" and this system removes inequalities in the strengths of the regiments concerning the manpower.
