09-21-2014, 02:00 AM
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.
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.
