[split] Distances between files and ranks

[Steven James]

Nathan wrote:
That would make an overall formation of thirty ranks deep!

My paper discussing how this was done.


https://www.academia.edu/19860273/48_BC_..._Pharsalus

[Bryan]

I suspect that Roman units were almost never two deep. I advocate the analysis, put forward by Goldsworthy and others, that the fact that the handful of references to unit depth tend to be in multiples of 3 or 4 (e.g. 3,4,6,8). This must suggest a drill based around contubernia of 6 or 8 men, deploying either by the file or half file.

A while back you wrote a paper that listed century/maniple depth. I can't find it right now, but what were the sources you used? Wasn't there one from Cato the Elder too?

[Renatus]

Michael wrote:

Did he say where the bit about each tribune commanding five centurions comes from?
 
In the Teubner text of Arrian's "Art of Tactics"

I assume that this refers to Paragraph 10. In the foreword to his translation, DeVoto says that the first part of Arrian’s work (paragraphs 1-32.2) is ’essentially an idealized reconstruction of a Hellenistic army in which Macedonian principles of organization predominate’. The relevance of this to the second-century Roman army is unclear. However, turning to numbers, Arrian deals with what DeVoto calls a ’basic unit’ of 16 men and says that eight such units, totalling 128 men, was led by a taxiarchos. This in some way relates to a 100-man unit led by a hekontarchos. In an endnote to this section, DeVoto suggests that this probably refers to the traditional Roman century and its centurion. Perhaps Arrian was suggesting that the two units were numerically approximately equivalent. Later, he states that a 1000-man unit of 1024 men or 64 basic units was commanded by a chiliarchos. However, if a chiliarchos is a tribune and a hekontarchos is a centurion, this would mean that a tribune commanded 10 centurions, not five.

In relation to the Roman legion itself, we have one tribunus laticlavius and five tribuni angusticlavii. We also have a first cohort of five (or possibly six) centuries and nine cohorts of six centuries each. This gives us 59 (or 60) centurions. If each tribune commanded five centurions, i.e., 30, this would leave 29 (or 30) centurions unaccounted for.

All-in-all, I find DeVoto’s reasoning difficult to comprehend.
                                                                                                                 

[Nathan Ross]

My paper discussing how this was done.

p.5:... with Pompey’s three battle lines being deployed ten men deep, Pompey’s 4,000 Italian camp guards would represent those pilani aged thirty nine years to forty two years, who constitute ranks nine and ten. With the frontage of Pompey’s legionaries being arrayed 1,500 men wide, ranks nine and ten amount to 3,000 pilani being allocated as camp guards... with ratio of legionaries to auxiliary infantry being 3:1, this would allocate an additional 1,000 auxiliary infantry as camp guards, which complies with Appian’s figure of 4,000 camp guards (3,000 pilani and 1,000 auxiliary infantry). The 4,000 camp guards could have been organised into ten cohorts each of 400 men, with a cohort consisting of 300 legionaries and 100 auxiliary infantry (fifty archers and fifty slingers) organised into five centuries each of eighty men (sixty legionaries, ten archers and ten slingers)."

This sounds like you are reducing the ten-deep formation to an eight-deep formation by taking away two ranks to act as 'camp guards' (again!). Is that right?

Do you mean two ranks from each of the three acies? Why would Frontinus say that Pompeius had drawn his men up in three ten-deep lines if it was actually three eight-deep lines (or two ten-deep and one eight-deep)? They can't be in the ranks and guarding the camp at the same time.

And how do you figure auxiliaries (allied troops at this date) being integrated with legion cohorts and even with centuries? How would that work?

[Steven James]

Nathan wrote:

This sounds like you are reducing the ten-deep formation to an eight-deep formation by taking away two ranks to act as 'camp guards' (again!). Is that right? Do you mean two ranks from each of the three acies?
 
“Pompey’s three battlelines each of 125 maniples produced a frontage of 1,500 men (4,500 feet) and a depth of 30 men.
 

15000 Hastati        10 deep

15000 Princeps      10 deep

15000 Pilani           10 deep

45000 men            30 deep

 
After the removal of the 3,000 older pilani as camp guards (ranks nine and ten) taken from the pilani, Pompey’s remaining 42,000 legionaries had a depth of 28 men.
 

15000 Hastati        10 deep

15000 Princeps      10 deep

12000 Pilani             8 deep

42000 men            28 deep

 
Nathan wrote:
Why would Frontinus say that Pompeius had drawn his men up in three ten-deep lines if it was actually three eight-deep lines (or two ten-deep and one eight-deep)? They can't be in the ranks and guarding the camp at the same time.
 
Maybe Frontinus rounded the 28 deep to 30 deep, so as to save time and explanation, as remember, he is writing about stratagems as a whole. Many of his stratagems do not cover minute detail.
 
Anyway I have presented my case with that paper and it is up to you to prove different.
 
Nathan wrote:
And how do you figure auxiliaries (allied troops at this date) being integrated with legion cohorts and even with centuries? How would that work?
 
Your problem is you have only concerned yourself with the principate period.
 
Frontinus (Stratagem 5 7 27) Scipio Aemililanus distributed his archers and slingers among the cohorts and centuries. Vegetius (1 15) Scipio “incorporate picked archers in all the centuries.” Sallust (Jugurthine War 49), (46 7), (49 6), the consul Metellus distributed the slingers and archers between the maniples.
 
In my legion array, a specific number of archers and slingers are placed in the gaps between the maniples. Now you must remember I have five maniples in each line, with enough space for the archers. In fact there should be enough space for an officer with a horse to ride between the maniple gaps.
 
Following these examples, where would you place the archers and slingers. And yes I am aware of reference of them being placed in front of the army and on the flanks.
 
In his account of the battle of Pharsalus, Appian writes that as the opposing armies came nearer: “there was first a discharge of arrows and stones.” In Dio’s account of the first battle of Philippi, after the signal to commence battle was sounded: “the heavy troops gave the war-cry, beat their shields with their spears and then hurled their spears, while the slingers and the archers discharged their stones and missiles.”
 
Where do you think these troops are stationed Nathan?
 
Michael wrote:
However, if a chiliarchos is a tribune and a hekontarchos is a centurion, this would mean that a tribune commanded 10 centurions, not five.
 
I’m having this conversation with DeVoto right now. I am for a tribune commanding ten centuries. It has been that way since the three tribes of Romulus. I also have been discussing with Devoto the size of Arrian’s legions, which are not full strength legions.
 

[Renatus]

I am for a tribune commanding ten centuries. It has been that way since the three tribes of Romulus.
 

That does create a problem in the Principate, doesn't it? If you have six centuries in a cohort, that would mean that a tribune would command the six centuries in one cohort and four from another and then another tribune would command the remaining two centuries from that cohort, the six of another and two from a third and so on. Even if this represented only administrative responsibility and not battlefield command, it would still be peculiar.

[Steven James]

Michael wrote:

That does create a problem in the Principate, doesn't it? If you have six centuries in a cohort, that would mean that a tribune would command the six centuries in one cohort and four from another and then another tribune would command the remaining two centuries from that cohort, the six of another and two from a third and so on. Even if this represented only administrative responsibility and not battlefield command, it would still be peculiar.
 
Well maybe you need to rethink about how you interpret the organisation of a legion and try and determine if there is another way. Just concentrating on the period of the principate isn’t enough. In 462 BC, Dionysius mentions four cohorts each of 600 men were stationed before Rome.

[Nathan Ross]

Maybe Frontinus rounded the 28 deep to 30 deep, so as to save time and explanation

Well... maybe! But I think we have to assume that the sources mean what they say, and not that they made mistakes, altered numbers or fudged things, just to suit our own theories.

Following these examples, where would you place the archers and slingers.

At the flanks, or the rear, or in gaps between the other units, or ahead of them - anywhere would be fine really.

Your Frontinus quote, meanwhile, does indeed suggest that light troops were incorporated into legion subunits. How that was done is not clear; nor is it clear whether this is a permanent alteration or a temporary expedient. If Frontinus mentions Scipio doing it as a 'stratagem', it probably means this was not standard practice, and few other commanders did the same.

[Renatus]

Well maybe you need to rethink about how you interpret the organisation of a legion and try and determine if there is another way. Just concentrating on the period of the principate isn’t enough. In 462 BC, Dionysius mentions four cohorts each of 600 men were stationed before Rome.

It's not simply a matter of 'concentrating' on the Principate. The Principate exists and you can't ignore it. What you suggest might have applied at some time during the Republic but, once the cohortal system comes in, you have to consider whether what applied beforehand still applies. Dionysius' cohorts of 600 men each looks like six 100-man centuries, which does not look far off the system in the Principate, apart from the number of men in a century. And what is the significance of the number 'four'? Is Dionysius suggesting that this is one coherent unit or are they simply four detached units?

I might add that this part of the discussion originated from Arrian's description of the expedition against the Alans and that falls squarely within the Principate.

[Steven James]

Nathan wrote:

Well... maybe! But I think we have to assume that the sources mean what they say, and not that they made mistakes, altered numbers or fudged things, just to suit our own theories.
 
You mean like your example of the Perge document. Really, Nathan, you are contradicting yourself. Anyway, opinion is not fact. Show me proof the figure of 30 ranks has not been rounded from 28 ranks. Even if it was 30 ranks and the camp guard were additional, Pompey’s legionaries would increase from 45,000 men to 48,000 men. Appian claims there were 70,000 Italians at Pharsalus, so after subtracting Caesar’s 22,000 from 70,000, the residue is 48,000 men. However, I have worked with Caesar’s figure of 45,000 men and followed Roman military doctrine going back to the early republic, which shows how camp guards were allocated.
 
Nathan wrote:
Your Frontinus quote, meanwhile, does indeed suggest that light troops were incorporated into legion subunits. How that was done is not clear; nor is it clear whether this is a permanent alteration or a temporary expedient.
 
There were distributed among the centuries and maniples as explained by Frontinus. Now if you want to know if it was a permanent alteration or a temporary expedient, gather up all the data from 123 BC to the end of the republic and you will find the answer to your question.
 
Michael wrote:
It's not simply a matter of 'concentrating' on the Principate. The Principate exists and you can't ignore it.
 
When it comes to understanding the Roman legion you must first understand the Servian constitution, and the legion of the republic. You cannot ignore these periods and believe by studying the legion of the principate is sufficient. It is not, as the evolution of the Roman legion follows a continuity laid down by the Servian constitution.
 
Michael wrote:
What you suggest might have applied at some time during the Republic but, once the cohortal system comes in, you have to consider whether what applied beforehand still applies.
 
In the previous post you did your calculations based on the legion having 10 cohorts. You also believe in the cohort system being introduced at a later date. Have you thoroughly tested these beliefs?
 
Michael wrote:
Dionysius' cohorts of 600 men each looks like six 100-man centuries, which does not look far off the system in the Principate, apart from the number of men in a century. And what is the significance of the number 'four'?
 
I used that reference to show that there are other numbers besides ten cohorts. A cohort of 600 men can also be calculated at 10 centuries each of 60 men. Have you ever considered that? Returning to Romulus and a military tribune commanded 10 centuries, each of those four cohorts could be what a military tribune commands. Therefore, you could be looking at a 40 century legion amounting to 2,400 men, organised into 40 centuries each of 60 men, 20 maniples each of 120 men, 10 cohorts each of 240 men, and four military tribune cohorts each of 600 men. By the time of the Principate, Livy claims, that in relation to the Servian constitution, the number of centuries in his days has doubled. So who is to say that by the reign of Augustus, the legion overtime increased from 2,400 men in 462 BC to 4,800 men in 27 BC?
 

[Renatus]

Michael wrote:
It's not simply a matter of 'concentrating' on the Principate. The Principate exists and you can't ignore it.
 
When it comes to understanding the Roman legion you must first understand the Servian constitution, and the legion of the republic. You cannot ignore these periods and believe by studying the legion of the principate is sufficient. It is not, as the evolution of the Roman legion follows a continuity laid down by the Servian constitution.
 
Michael wrote:
What you suggest might have applied at some time during the Republic but, once the cohortal system comes in, you have to consider whether what applied beforehand still applies.
 
In the previous post you did your calculations based on the legion having 10 cohorts. You also believe in the cohort system being introduced at a later date. Have you thoroughly tested these beliefs?
 
Michael wrote:
Dionysius' cohorts of 600 men each looks like six 100-man centuries, which does not look far off the system in the Principate, apart from the number of men in a century. And what is the significance of the number 'four'?
 
I used that reference to show that there are other numbers besides ten cohorts. A cohort of 600 men can also be calculated at 10 centuries each of 60 men. Have you ever considered that? Returning to Romulus and a military tribune commanded 10 centuries, each of those four cohorts could be what a military tribune commands. Therefore, you could be looking at a 40 century legion amounting to 2,400 men, organised into 40 centuries each of 60 men, 20 maniples each of 120 men, 10 cohorts each of 240 men, and four military tribune cohorts each of 600 men. By the time of the Principate, Livy claims, that in relation to the Servian constitution, the number of centuries in his days has doubled. So who is to say that by the reign of Augustus, the legion overtime increased from 2,400 men in 462 BC to 4,800 men in 27 BC?
 

I don't know what any of this has to do with my original question. I don't dispute that the army changed over time and that the army of the Principate would probably have looked different from the army of the Republic. What I am asking is, how does your suggestion of a tribune commanding ten centuries fit in with our understanding of the structure of the legion of the Principate and, if you intend to counter that by saying that our understanding is flawed, what is your suggestion as to how we should understand it?

[Steven James]

Michael wrote:

What I am asking is, how does your suggestion of a tribune commanding ten centuries fit in with our understanding of the structure of the legion of the Principate and, if you intend to counter that by saying that our understanding is flawed, what is your suggestion as to how we should understand it?
 
Following Hyginus a century had 80 men, and six tribune cohorts to a legion and each tribune commanded ten centuries, a legion had 4,800 men, and each tribune commanded 800 men. Therefore, the legion can be organised into six tribune cohorts each of 800 men and ten cohorts each of 480 men.
 
What modern scholars have failed to determine is that the tribunes have their own organisation within a legion. Tribunes were not glorified messengers on the battlefield as many modern scholars believe. Many references to cohorts are actually referring to those men under the command of a tribune.
 
Arrian has been converting tribune cohorts into the Hellenistic organisation.

[Renatus]

Following Hyginus a century had 80 men, and six tribune cohorts to a legion and each tribune commanded ten centuries, a legion had 4,800 men, and each tribune commanded 800 men. Therefore, the legion can be organised into six tribune cohorts each of 800 men and ten cohorts each of 480 men.

Can you give me some references, please? I can see nothing in Hyginus about tribune cohorts or of tribunes commanding any number of men.

[Michael J. Taylor]

There is no reason to think that there was any attempt to assign tribunes to a designated unit, and the canonical number of "six" was preserved from Polybius to the Principate, even as the strength of the legion fluctuated.

[Steven James]

Michael wrote:

Can you give me some references, please? I can see nothing in Hyginus about tribune cohorts or of tribunes commanding any number of men.
 
After mentioning Hyginus had 80 men in a century, the next part about the tribunes was a different train of thought and was not in reference to Hyginus.
 
Michael Taylor wrote:
There is no reason to think that there was any attempt to assign tribunes to a designated unit, and the canonical number of "six" was preserved from Polybius to the Principate, even as the strength of the legion fluctuated.
 
And that is why your research and mine greatly differ.