Who Commanded the Velites?

[antiochus]

Tim wrote:
I can't help to notice that Caesar reported sending the antesignani of the 14th Legion to seize a hill, and then latter reported the death of a centurio from the 1st Cohors of that Legion (Primus hastatus prior or posterior). Not sure what to make of that one.

As there are no velites for Caesar’s period, using this period to determine if the velites had thier own officers can be fraught with problems, not solutions.

[Macedon]

For me it is certain that the velites had their own officers. They may have organically belonged to maniples and cohorts but still, when operating, they would need some kind of authority to take some quick decisions and have the power to discipline. The same thing applies to the psiloi of the Greek armies, whose officers are also never mentioned in works outside the hellenistic manuals. I would expect the Velites' officers to have been in rank inferior to a centurion and generally not interfering with the line infantry but of course that would be a guess based on nothing other than intuition and an effort to explain why we there is no more evidence I am aware of.

[antiochus]

Macedon wrote:
They may have organically belonged to maniples and cohorts but still, when operating, they would need some kind of authority to take some quick decisions and have the power to discipline.

I believe Polybius means the maniples of velites were distributed among the cohorts. Now the end result of this is all the cohorts have the same number of men. Also the ten squadrons can be allocated one maniple of velites, thereby technically allocating four velites to each cavalry men. Four velites plus one cavalry makes a manus (five), which Varro tells us is the smallest military unit in the Roman army.

Macedon wrote:
I would expect the Velites' officers to have been in rank inferior to a centurion and generally not interfering with the line infantry but of course that would be a guess based on nothing other than intuition and an effort to explain why we there is no more evidence I am aware of.

Who they are is another matter. However, it is not beyond the realms of impossibility to narrow down who they are. The Romans do not work from a vacuum. Everything has a beginning. The early Praetorian Guard follow the same organisation as the extraordinarii, and the organisation of the auxiliary in the principate follows the early organisation of the praetorians. Therefore, the velites follow the same organisation as did the rorarii, and why not they are from the same class (proletarii). The 5200 legion includes everything that went into the legion, which includes the all the officers (standard and additional). It seems a personal choice of what an ancient historian will or will not include. Appian takes the 5200 man legion and rounds it to 5000 men.

Of all the ancient historians, the one that has made the most mathematical errors is Polybius. Whenever, the 5400 man legion is mentioned, as Livy does for Magnesia, the source is Polybius. Polybius’ figure of 5400 men is a mistake, and it bears his distinct mathematical trademark mistake he makes over and over again. It’s a simple matter to correct as contained on numerous occasion within the primary sources is how the mistake was made in the first place. Much of this can be found in Livy’s books from 192 BC to 167 BC. Most of Livy’s source material comes from Polybius, a fact Livy admits to. For anyone interested have a read and notice the appearance of a legion of 5200 men now accompanied by 200 cavalry, two legions now accompanied by 400 cavalry and four legions now accompanied by 800 cavalry. What Polybius struggles with is the Roman doctrine of having the cavalry on the same roll as the infantry. He is consistent in never getting it right. And when it comes to consular army numbers, this is another of his disaster specialities. In Livy’s books 33 to 44, the ratio of allied infantry to allied cavalry can vary from 15:1 to 30:1. He gives references of a consular army with only 800 allied cavalry. The same error appears in Polybius’ Telamon campaign. For Telamon, Polybius has allocated each consular army as consisting of eight legions. It’s easy to see what the first mistake is. His second is he allocates 2000 allied cavalry for two consular armies, thereby giving each consular army 1000 allied cavalry. That would allocate each allied legion 250 allied cavalry. As Polybius gives the size of the legion at 5200 men, the allied infantry to allied cavalry is now 21:1. So much for the 3:1 or 2:1 ratio both Polybius and Livy speak of. Oh why oh why is it that academics can criticise Polybius’ for getting his description of the Roman constitution wrong, but treat his description of the legion a sacred cow?

Livy has shown us the rorarii had officers, and this doctrine continues till the disappearance of the velites.

[Mark Hygate]

Noting that:

- it seems likely that there are 2 Centurions and 2 Optios per maniple (which is where we get our early determination that there are one each per century - as it has been previously nicely emphasised that Polybius doesn't mention centuries specifically)

- that the maniple fights as a coherent unit and can be commanded by only one centurion at times

- that, in the classic deployment, whilst the velites are fighting, the maniples are not (especially the Principes if their velites also advance as part of the skirmishing engagement)

Then it is quite possible that the velites don't require their own officers, as there are plenty to go around. And this, given it doesn't require extras, can survive throughout the entire period, whether we talk about Velites, Antesignanii or Lanciarii - which I believe are an evolutionary line of similar types, maintaining exactly the same proportions.

[antiochus]

Mark wrote:
Then it is quite possible that the velites don't require their own officers, as there are plenty to go around.

So far in this discussion, no one has offered any real evidence pertaining to the view the velites did not have any officers. Comments like the hastati would be able to control them on the battlefield is not evidence just an opinion.

In his infamous description of the Roman legion, Polybius makes the claim that from each of the classes except the youngest, ten centurions are elected, who in turn elect another ten. So each class provides 20 centurions. Polybius refers to the velites as being the youngest so that rules out class V. Polybius then tells us a legion consists of four classes, which strangely enough adds up to 80 centurions. Now in his description of the camp, Polybius, according to the Loeb translation, allocates 10 maniples to each class. This will produce 40 maniples and 80 centurions divided by 40 maniples must mean each maniple has two centurions.

[Mark Hygate]

Mark wrote:
Then it is quite possible that the velites don't require their own officers, as there are plenty to go around.

So far in this discussion, no one has offered any real evidence pertaining to the view the velites did not have any officers. Comments like the hastati would be able to control them on the battlefield is not evidence just an opinion.

In his infamous description of the Roman legion, Polybius makes the claim that from each of the classes except the youngest, ten centurions are elected, who in turn elect another ten. So each class provides 20 centurions. Polybius refers to the velites as being the youngest so that rules out class V. Polybius then tells us a legion consists of four classes, which strangely enough adds up to 80 centurions. Now in his description of the camp, Polybius, according to the Loeb translation, allocates 10 maniples to each class. This will produce 40 maniples and 80 centurions divided by 40 maniples must mean each maniple has two centurions.

Well, equally no one in the discussion has provided any evidence that the velites had any officers either - except the sensible suggestion, that I fully endorse, that it is most likely that they did indeed require some 'command and control'; especially if they are detached. However, given the make up of the legion (where I have explained my own determination here - Polybian Legion re-defined - and the only numbers therein not originally specified are reasonably determined to be cornicens).

So, I therefore still offer that there is no reason not to suggest that no additional officers are required; and reasonable reason to suggest (my post) that there are no spares to account for anyway.

As to the remainder, I think I'm fairly accurate in pointing out that 'classes' are not a feature of the Polybian/Manipular legion - simply age divisions; the only mention of class I can recall is the reference to lower class (defined by property ownwership) being allowed to only wear the 'heart-shield' and not a full hamata, whichever of the heavy infantry divisions they belong to. In addition there are not 40 maniples, only 30 and thus 60 centurions (plus matching optios and signifers). In the actual Roman legions there are an additional 10 turmae of cavalry, which is where your figure of 40 may possibly come from, but that results in 30 decurions and 30 optios (probably with an integral 10 or 30 signifers of some sort, but not, iirc, mentioned).

[antiochus]

Mark wrote:
Well, equally no one in the discussion has provided any evidence that the velites had any officers either –

No matter how you look at it four classes multiplied by 20 centurions per class and you get 80 centurions. So there are 20 spare centurions.

Mark wrote:
As to the remainder, I think I'm fairly accurate in pointing out that 'classes' are not a feature of the Polybian/Manipular legion

But, but, but, Polybius mentions the velites are the youngest and the poorest. It is the property class system that relates to wealth, so if the property class wasn’t associated with age, why does Polybius combine the two when he describes the velites?

Mark wrote:
In the actual Roman legions there are an additional 10 turmae of cavalry, which is where your figure of 40 may possibly come from,

Polybius does not describe the cavalry as being organised into maniples.

[Mark Hygate]

Mark wrote:
Well, equally no one in the discussion has provided any evidence that the velites had any officers either –

No matter how you look at it four classes multiplied by 20 centurions per class and you get 80 centurions. So there are 20 spare centurions.

Mark wrote:
As to the remainder, I think I'm fairly accurate in pointing out that 'classes' are not a feature of the Polybian/Manipular legion

But, but, but, Polybius mentions the velites are the youngest and the poorest. It is the property class system that relates to wealth, so if the property class wasn’t associated with age, why does Polybius combine the two when he describes the velites?

Mark wrote:
In the actual Roman legions there are an additional 10 turmae of cavalry, which is where your figure of 40 may possibly come from,

Polybius does not describe the cavalry as being organised into maniples.

There are not 4 'classes', there are not 40 maniples. There are only 30; the velites are attached to the 30 maniples/60 centuries. The numbers are completely consistent with there being 20 velites to 60 heavy infantry (Triarii 'normally' at half strength - details all in that previous post).

The velites are indeed the youngest and, therefore in most cases, will be the poorest. The system of choice, however, could easily result in a selection of a reasonably well off, but very young citizen who would serve in the velites, but at another time would be in the hastati and would be able to immediately afford the implied armour.

The make up of a legion, we are given to understand, is simply a matter of probability and statistics and it's easy to imagine the occasional outlier result. :wink:

I did not suggest that the turmae were organised in maniples, but there is evidence that might well support the contention that, certainly later after they were re-instituted under the Empire, they were often paired. Thinking of the cavalry, it is also not unreasonable to suggest that the cavalry officers took the velites under command if they were detached to them.

There are certainly sufficient officers in the legion (60 centurions; 60 optios; 10 senior decurions; 20 junior decurions; and 30 cavalry optios) for the distinct possibility that there are no further officers - indeed as that previous post determines from the numbers; the only number of 'missing' supernumeries to the legion that seem to be absent from Polybius' description are the 20 that I detailed; and with the likely result that they are 'cornicens' (who are apparently present, but not otherwise detailed).

Given that the velites (and, I believe, the subsequent antesignanii/lanciarii) are an integral part of each maniple/century, I certainly see no liklihood for additional officers. Detachments just get 'detached officers' as well.

[antiochus]

Mark wrote:
There are not 4 'classes', there are not 40 maniples. There are only 30; the velites are attached to the 30 maniples/60 centuries.

Polybius has four classes to a legion and 20 centurions to each class. Rather than avoid the material, I seek to address it. There is too much data in the primary sources that has not been addressed and continues to be ignored because of its conflicting nature. Polybius four classes and the 20 centurions to a class is one such issue. However, Polybius is not alone. I have a lot more data of there being an additional 20 centurions required for all emergency legions.

Mark wrote:
The velites are indeed the youngest and, therefore in most cases, will be the poorest. The system of choice, however, could easily result in a selection of a reasonably well off, but very young citizen who would serve in the velites

So you’re saying some young kid in Class I can serve in the velites? Technically, he would be classified as a classis but now belongs to the ranks of the infra classem. That goes against Roman society and makes the class structure irrelevant. And how is this kid from Class I be expected to vote in the legion’s tribal assembly? If he votes with Class I, then the infra classem are short of one vote. You need to understand how the Servian constitution works, of which Dionysius and Livy provides a detailed account.

[Mark Hygate]

Mark wrote:
There are not 4 'classes', there are not 40 maniples. There are only 30; the velites are attached to the 30 maniples/60 centuries.

Polybius has four classes to a legion and 20 centurions to each class. Rather than avoid the material, I seek to address it. There is too much data in the primary sources that has not been addressed and continues to be ignored because of its conflicting nature. Polybius four classes and the 20 centurions to a class is one such issue. However, Polybius is not alone. I have a lot more data of there being an additional 20 centurions required for all emergency legions.

Mark wrote:
The velites are indeed the youngest and, therefore in most cases, will be the poorest. The system of choice, however, could easily result in a selection of a reasonably well off, but very young citizen who would serve in the velites

So you’re saying some young kid in Class I can serve in the velites? Technically, he would be classified as a classis but now belongs to the ranks of the infra classem. That goes against Roman society and makes the class structure irrelevant. And how is this kid from Class I be expected to vote in the legion’s tribal assembly? If he votes with Class I, then the infra classem are short of one vote. You need to understand how the Servian constitution works, of which Dionysius and Livy provides a detailed account.

Where, please, does Polybius say that there are four classes in a legion. To the best of my reading he divides each Roman legion into 5 'divisions' (one of which is the cavalry); only 3 of which (the 3 heavy infantry divisions) are subdivided into 10ths, each of which receives 2 centurions - the velites, specifically, are not and are themselves divided between the 3 infantry divisions.

No class distinctions (apart from the armour reference), only age.

And yes, Polybius does not mention class distinctions for choosing the divisions. By my understanding, 4,000 men are chosen for each legion - from all the eligible, plebeian, citizens. The youngest 1,000 (my previous post) become the velites - they could be of any age, but statistical results will tend to ensure they are late teens and only a little older. Nothing seems to suggest that being called to service one year changes your chances for the next, up until you have served the maximum number of years; which could, therefore, mean you were called up every year from age 17(?) to 26 (unlikely mind you) and then 'retire'.

It also means that you could be a velite at 35! But that too is unlikely, but not impossible. I, like many, dream of winning the lottery, but being a velite at a significant age (in fact serving as a velite one year, a hastatus the next and back to velite for the third call-up) is much more likely!

[antiochus]

Mark wrote:
Where, please, does Polybius say that there are four classes in a legion.

Polybius (6 21 8): “When they come to the rendezvous, they choose the youngest and poorest to form the velites; the next to them are made hastati; those in the prime of life principes ; and the oldest of all triarii, these being the names among the Romans of the four classes (helokias or class by age) in each legion distinct in age and equipment.”

Mark wrote:
It also means that you could be a velite at 35! But that too is unlikely, but not impossible. I, like many, dream of winning the lottery, but being a velite at a significant age (in fact serving as a velite one year, a hastatus the next and back to velite for the third call-up) is much more likely!

Polybius has those who are rated above 10,000 drachmas wear a coat of chain mail (lorica). As per Dionysius and Livy’s description of the Servian constitution, your property class determines the armour you wear. The lower your property rating, the less armour you wore. Therefore, you cannot one year be a velite then the next year become a hastati unless your fiscal situation has improved and you now qualify to be a hastati. The Servian constitution is pretty straight forward in explaining the relationship of armour to property class, yet you can only see the legion divided into age divisions.

[Mark Hygate]

Mark wrote:
Where, please, does Polybius say that there are four classes in a legion.

Polybius (6 21 8): “When they come to the rendezvous, they choose the youngest and poorest to form the velites; the next to them are made hastati; those in the prime of life principes ; and the oldest of all triarii, these being the names among the Romans of the four classes (helokias or class by age) in each legion distinct in age and equipment.”

Mark wrote:
It also means that you could be a velite at 35! But that too is unlikely, but not impossible. I, like many, dream of winning the lottery, but being a velite at a significant age (in fact serving as a velite one year, a hastatus the next and back to velite for the third call-up) is much more likely!

Polybius has those who are rated above 10,000 drachmas wear a coat of chain mail (lorica). As per Dionysius and Livy’s description of the Servian constitution, your property class determines the armour you wear. The lower your property rating, the less armour you wore. Therefore, you cannot one year be a velite then the next year become a hastati unless your fiscal situation has improved and you now qualify to be a hastati. The Servian constitution is pretty straight forward in explaining the relationship of armour to property class, yet you can only see the legion divided into age divisions.

Ahh, no, I see where you are coming from. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, you were talking about the property classes (as it seems, although it's an earlier reference by Livy who writes much later, to the division of the Roman army by property classes (Classes I to V) that forms the, so called, Camillan structure, that seems to utterly disappear before at least 300BC and to which detail is very scarce).

I believe you misunderstand the, much simpler and more sensible, division by age that Polybius fairly clearly sets out; especially when it comes to the application of statistics. In a strict determination (and I'm sure there were exceptions) of division by age, it matters not one whit which property class you are in; if you are a velite, you don't wear armour it seems (and you have different weapons). If, however, you are older and are serving in the heavy infantry component, then it is expected that you will will wear a mail coat, however those who are poorer may wear just the 'heart shield'.

The whole detail of the choosing and then the subsequent re-assembly when you arrive in all your finery is so that you can go off and suitably equip yourself from the arms and armour you are supposed to already have (or hurriedly buy/un-pawn/dust-off/etc). Dividing by age could certainly mean you switch roles in various campaign seasons as you get older, but the choosing result and age division puts you 'back' in a division you have served in earlier.

When it comes to a succinct answer to your OP and the thread title, the answer is simple - the centurions of the heavy infantry maniples/centuries commanded the velites attached to them. That actually seems obvious.

However, who had 'tactical control' on the battlefield is a bit more subjective. I maintain that there are more than sufficient numbers of officers in the legion structure that we know about; and Polybius specifically excludes centurions for the velites (the youngest). There are indeed 20 men that Polybius does not detail in his 4,000/4,200 men legions and, as noted, and I believe they are the cornicens, who have to be there (all the camp detail and battle scenes), but are not enumerated.

[Bryan]

Polybius' four infantry classes:

"When they come to the rendezvous, they choose the youngest and poorest to form the velites; the next to them are made hastati; those in the prime of life principes; and the oldest of all triarii, these being the names among the Romans of the four classes in each legion distinct in age and equipment. "
(Pol Hist, 6, 21.7)

The maniples and centurions:

"From each of the classes except the youngest they elect ten centurions according to merit, and then they elect a second ten. All these are called centurions, and the first man elected has a seat in the military council. The centurions then appoint an equal number of rearguard officers (optiones). Next, in conjunction with the centurions, they divide each class into ten companies, except the velites, and assign to each company two centurions and two optiones from among the elected officers. The velites are divided equally among all the companies; these companies are called ordines or manipuli or vexilla, and their officers are called centurions or ordinum ductores."
(6, 24.1-5)
Online Loeb translation of Polybius

The velites aren't placed into their own maniples, they are put into the line infantry's maniples. Therefore, they don't have their own officers, they fall under the command of the centurions of the hastati, principe, and triari. 30 maniples, 60 centurions, not 40/80.

[antiochus]

Mark wrote:
Ahh, no, I see where you are coming from. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, you were talking about the property classes (as it seems, although it's an earlier reference by Livy who writes much later, to the division of the Roman army by property classes (Classes I to V) that forms the, so called, Camillan structure, that seems to utterly disappear before at least 300BC and to which detail is very scarce).

Mark, that is a rather confusing written paragraph. Yes I am talking about the property class and also have been. Each property class also represents an age division; they both go hand in hand. Dionysius and Livy both mention that during a census both age and property were required. The document Tabula Heracleensis, possibly written between 80 – 43 BC, states that when the censor takes the census:

“He shall accept from them under oath their names, praenomens, parents or patrons, tribes, cognomens, the age of each citizen, and the statement of his property in accordance with the pattern of the census, which shall be posted at Rome by the official who is about to take the census of the people at that time.” (Tabula Heracleensis 28)

Again property and age are required. As to your reference to Camilius, and the so called Camillian reforms, that is a forced theory invented by modern academics that has been taken out of proportion to what the primary sources credit him with, and that is modifications to the armour of the troops.

Mark wrote:
I believe you misunderstand the, much simpler and more sensible, division by age that Polybius fairly clearly sets out; especially when it comes to the application of statistics. In a strict determination (and I'm sure there were exceptions) of division by age, it matters not one whit which property class you are in; if you are a velite, you don't wear armour it seems (and you have different weapons). If, however, you are older and are serving in the heavy infantry component, then it is expected that you will will wear a mail coat, however those who are poorer may wear just the 'heart shield'.

As I have already stated, the Servian constitution associated the weapons worn is dictated by a citizen’s property wealth. Even Polybius (6 23 14) confirms the weapons worn is associated with wealth when he writes “those who are rated above 10,000 drachmas wear a coat of mail (lorica). I put this in my last posting of which you have not addressed.

Mark wrote:
The whole detail of the choosing and then the subsequent re-assembly when you arrive in all your finery is so that you can go off and suitably equip yourself from the arms and armour you are supposed to already have (or hurriedly buy/un-pawn/dust-off/etc).

Sorry Mark but I do not buy into the troops supplied their own equipment. There are too many references of the state providing the equipment and the troops having to pay a war tax on the equipment. I posted many of the references on this forum some six years ago that debunk the myth that men provided their own equipment. Since then I have produced them in various postings and it had made no difference to how people think. And this is the crutch of the problem. I find it exhausting debating against people who base most of their understanding of the Roman army on the deductions of modern theories and fail due to laziness to return to the primary sources and do their own original research. Too many on this list simply follow popular theories because everyone else does, and because so many think the same, they therefore believe it must be right. Call it the safety in numbers approach.

Mark wrote:
When it comes to a succinct answer to your OP and the thread title, the answer is simple - the centurions of the heavy infantry maniples/centuries commanded the velites attached to them. That actually seems obvious.

Well it is obvious if your only source of evidence is Polybius’ limited comment.

Mark wrote:
However, who had 'tactical control' on the battlefield is a bit more subjective.

You claim the answer is simply, and that is the centurions of the heavy infantry commanded the velites now you are not sure about who had tactical control.

Mark wrote:
There are indeed 20 men that Polybius does not detail in his 4,000/4,200 men legions and, as noted, and I believe they are the cornicens, who have to be there (all the camp detail and battle scenes), but are not enumerated.

So the cornicens command the velites? As I stated in a previous thread, I have found my own answer. And it is based on more than Polybius’ comment. It begins with the ordines of rorarii as given by Livy. It involves a breakdown of all the legion sizes as found in all the primary sources dealing with the Republic, it also includes campaigns, and also my own reconstruction of the tribal system, which follows the Servian constitution. In the book, when it comes to Cannae, I show the levy process of raising eight Roman legions. After I remove the non combatants and leave them in the camps, I get 88,000 men, exactly as Plutarch tells us (those in battle array numbered 88,000 men). I remove the officers and I get mathematical matches with Appian, Livy and Polybius. I then apply Polybius statement of 20 centurions per class and get another perfect mathematical match, and from this I can calculate how many centurions each tribe contributed, and how many from each class. I can show how many centurions in the 4200 man legion, the 5000 man legion, the 5200 man legion, the 6000 man legion and the 6200 man legion. So a couple of comments from a few members telling me the heavy armed centurions commanded the velites is not going to change what I believe gained from my own conclusions gained by doing my own original research.

This original research can show quite easily that Polybius, when he writes about the Roman legion is switching sources between a small legion suited to garrison work and sieges, the emergency legion and the velite legion. He has confused them and this should be obvious to anyone who has made a compilation of his legion numbers. But unfortunately, no one has done a serious study of Polybius and his empirical data.

Also I am aware of how Polybius distributes the velites, but I am also aware of what protocol methods the Romans follow in relation to their officers when they do this. Polybius does describe three methods of how the velites are distributed, but do you know what protocol regarding the command structure of the velites is for each method?

[Renatus]

But unfortunately, no one has done a serious study of Polybius and his empirical data.

I don't know if this is covered in Frank Walbank's A Historical Commentary on Polybius but I take it that you have studied that.