Request for help and critique – Polybius Bk6

[Mark Hygate]

Ref A:  “Greece and Rome at War”, Connelly 1981
Ref B: “Roman Battle Tactics 390-110BC”, Fields 2010
Ref C: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Ro...us/6*.html – Thayer 1927
 
In an earlier life I have enjoyed such books as Ref A (and its abridged “The Roman Army” companion) along with several others that showed the organisational structure of the Roman Legion/Army; such things, throughout military history, being of simple interest.  A recent acquisition (Ref B) continues that interest, but with much greater focus.
 
Both references show the Hastati, Principes & Triarii maniples/centuries pictorially.  Ref A shows the Velites distributed at 40 per maniple, even though the Triarii ones are at ‘half-strength’, which always looked odd to me – why would the ‘reserve’ have such a number of light troops, except for equal dispersal when the century/contubernia numbers don’t match?  In addition, each century has a: Centurion; Optio; and Signifer.
 
Ref B doesn’t show the Velites, but does show that every century has a: Centurion; Optio; Signifer; and Cornicen.  In both cases they are quoting: 4200 total for a Legion; 1200 Hastati; 1200 Principes; 600 Triarii; and therefore deducing 1200 Velites to add to the total.
 
Both references mention the ‘larger Legion’, Ref A only as a number with regards to the Allies, but Ref B states that the Hastati & Principes increase from 1200 to 1600 (thus detailing all of the 800 increase and suggesting no additional Velites) and that the maniples must enlarge.
 
Given the numbers they use and also depict, both references seem to imply that the attached ‘officers’ are in addition to the 4200.  For Ref A it’s 180 and Ref B 240 in total.  Does this mean that the actual size of a Legion is either 4380 or 4440?  Just as ‘Nick’ recently quoted in the Zama thread; the: “4200 total for a Legion; 1200 Hastati; 1200 Principes; 600 Triarii; and therefore deducing 1200 Velites to add to the total” – seem to be otherwise generally accepted.
 
It’s when I finally got round to finding and actually reading myself the original ancient source (Ref C will be used and subsequent posts are from there) that I really saw the detail from which these authors had written; and then immediately wondered if what I had seen previously was incorrect?
 
There seem to be only 3 parts of Polybius Book 6 that matter:
 
Q1 - 6.20.8/9 – (8) “When they have chosen the number determined on — that is when the strength of each legion is brought up to four thousand two hundred, or in times of exceptional danger to five thousand — (9) the old system was to choose the cavalry after the four thousand two hundred infantry, but they now choose them first, the censor selecting them according to their wealth; and three hundred are assigned to each legion.”
 
Q2 – 6.21.9 – “They divide them so that the senior men known as triarii number six hundred, the principes twelve hundred, the hastati twelve hundred, the rest, consisting of the youngest, being velites. If the legion consists of more than four thousand men, they divide accordingly, except as regards the triarii, the number of whom is always the same.”
 
Q3 – 6.24.1-6 –( 1) From each of the classes except the youngest they elect ten centurions according to merit, and then they elect a second ten. (2) 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) Finally these officers appoint from the ranks two of the finest and bravest men to be standard-bearers (vexillarii) in each maniple.
 
Now when I read this I thought I had finally understood and it all started to make sense for the first time.  Q1 told me that there were 4200 men in a legion and 800 more in a ‘larger legion’; Q2 gave me the expected numbers for the heavy infantry – but specifically didn’t mention the number of Velites.  It then strongly suggested that the infantry numbered  4000 and not 4200, so that the Velites numbered 1000 and not 1200.  That meant, that with ‘equal distribution’ the Triarii maniples would probably have had half the complement of Velites just as the heavy infantry component is half-size as well.  Adding in Q3 and the 180 ‘officers’ came out of the remaining 200 ‘missing’ and that left only 20 unaccounted for.  Whilst Polybius doesn’t detail the ‘Cornicen’ position, it is strongly indicated as existing from elsewhere in his pages, but certainly not in a per century capacity as in Ref B.  Assigning 20 per legion, however, might certainly be reasonable.  Finally the numbers made sense.
 
I am suggesting, therefore, that the standard Roman Legion equates to 4200 men total.  That they are divided in to 50x 80-man centuries with each century consisting of 60x heavy infantry and 20x Velites.  Because, for tactical purposes, the Triarii are divided into half-centuries, there are then 60x 3-man ‘officer’ attachments; the total accounted for are 4180 and the remaining 20 are quite possibly ‘Cornicens’.
 
So, Ladies and Gentlemen of RAT, please may I ask for your critique?  I have no wish to suggest that previous researchers have ‘got it wrong’; especially as I cannot read the originals in Latin (a choice at secondary education that I have more than occasionally come to regret, but German was more immediately useful when I joined the Army!).
 
The question being, however, is whether I have made a silly mistake?  Or, perhaps, it’s at least not an unreasonable re-interpretation?

Thanks in advance - simpler and shorter queries being easier to answer.....

[Michael J. Taylor]

I think here Polybius is simply saying that there are always 600 triarii, even in 5000, or as we know from Livy 5200 and occasionally 6000 man legions.

There is every reason to think that the centurions are already counted as part of the 1200, as they are divided first, and then centurions are elected from their number. Same goes for the other officers.

I am not sure where you are getting 50 centuries. The 60 centuries in a legion seems to be very stable.

So the 4200 legion as 1200 velites, 1200 hastati principles (suggesting each century has ten contubernia of six men) and 600 hastati.

I think you may be right that the number of velites may have been less stable than Polybius suggests (after all, they go away not too long after he writes!).

A 5200 legion, to provide a completely hypothetical breakdown but somewhat more elegant breakdown, might have 1600 hastati/principes, with each century have ten contubernia of 8 men, 600 triarii, and 1400 velites. (Polybius would have us at a more clunky 1533,1533, 1533, 600)

Interestingly, Livy at Magnesia suggests 5400 man legions. A typo? Perhaps. But this would on a strictly Polybian breakdown provides 1600 vel/hast/princ and 600 triarii.

Presumably the standard strength for the triarii is that as reserves they simply were not used sufficiently to justify upping their numbers.

[Mark Hygate]

I think here Polybius is simply saying that there are always 600 triarii, even in 5000, or as we know from Livy 5200 and occasionally 6000 man legions.

Thanks Michael,

Polybius describes the 'Roman Military System'.  As described it does not allow for 5200 nor 6000 men legions.  I have never, to the best of my knowledge, seen any publication showing the detail as in References A or B that suggests this is so.  Yes, Livy does seem to use those numbers on occasion, but I am not aware of any publication that positively supports it.

In this case, however, I am concentrating on interpreting Polybius alone...

There is every reason to think that the centurions are already counted as part of the 1200, as they are divided first, and then centurions are elected from their number. Same goes for the other officers.

Polybius (Q3 follows Q2 in the text) does indeed detail the choice of 'officers' after the division by 'class'.  However, I have to ask whether you actually think this is likely?  Personally, and indeed logically, if I am going to select a 'command staff' from 4200 people then I'm going to pick the centurions first, then they will pick their optios and signifers.  I would then select the 20 missing men for whatever they are going to do.  Then I'll be dividing the remaining 4000.

I am not sure where you are getting 50 centuries. The 60 centuries in a legion seems to be very stable.

So the 4200 legion as 1200 velites, 1200 hastati principles (suggesting each century has ten contubernia of six men) and 600 hastati.

I am suggesting that a century is 80 men (60 heavy + 20 velites).  Thus there are 50 centuries in a legion; but the triarii 'century' turned into a maniple made up of 2 half-centuries and thus 60 centurions/optios/signifers.

If, however, you are correct earlier and that the 'officers' are selected 'last' - then you are suggesting not that "each century has 10 contubernia of 6 men", but that the century is only 57 men (+ velites).  Is that correct?

Why does Polybius specifically mention the number 4000 in Q2?  To me it does indeed suggest that the '200' have actually (and sensibly) already been selected and that the 1200+1200+600 can be subtracted from the 4000 to leave 1000 velites (a number not otherwise specified).

[Michael J. Taylor]

But I do not think we can ignore Livy! His information is not perfect, but he actually tells us a lot more about Roman army strengths and legion counts than Polybius.

---

Also, Livy makes it very clear that most "5000+" legions have a paper strength of 5200 infantry in the Middle Republic: e.g. 39.38.11; 40.36.10; 41.9.2; 42.31.2; 43.12.5, 43.12.10 (compiled by Brunt 1971: 674).  This number need not be fixed in stone, but it was common to the point of being standard.

[Mark Hygate]

Thanks to both of you. I am aware (thanks to you and others) that there are many seeming references to other numbers.

My simple request, however, for this thread (although I do intend to also try and pursue Steven's 'can you's from the Zama thread as promised) is whether my re-interpretation of Polybius Book 6 (alone) is awry in some way?

[Mark Hygate]

Can you give a step by step account of how a Roman levy is conducted?

Can you give me the exact age bracket of the velites?

Can you give me the exact age bracket of the hastati?

Can you give me the exact age bracket of the princeps?

Can you give me the exact age bracket of the triarii?

Can you give me the exact age bracket of the Roman cavalry?

I promised to try and do this and, seeing as Polybius addresses this also in Bk6 there's no reason not to - although 6.19-21 seems to cover it fairly well.  However, the obvious first answer is that there certainly doesn't seem to be any particular age bracket(s) associated with the choosing nor division - except broad divisions like 'youngest' and 'oldest'.

Following the election of the 2x Consuls for the year, the censor for the military levy first selects 24x Military Tribunes.  The first 14x must have completed at least 5 years prior servic; and the next 10x have completed at least 10 years (I must admit I am somewhat puzzled why it's not either 12+12 or 16+8 as that would seem more logical to me).  From the first 14x: 4x are assigned to Legio I; 3x to Legio II; 4x to Legio III; and 3x to Legio IV. The second set are then divided: 2x to Legio I; 3x to Legio II; 2x to Legio III; and 3 to Legio IV.  All legions receiving 6 total.

All eligible Males (those under 46 years of age and less than 10 years of service for Cavalry and less than 16 years for Infantry) are then assembled by census (those assessed at under 400 drachma, to the number needed, serving in the Navy) and by tribe. A lottery is conducted to determine the order of selection by Tribe and then the choosing commences.  The censor first determines the wealthiest 1200x to serve in the Cavalry; who are probably then the first selected by the Tribunes before the Infantry.

From each Tribe are selected 4x men of similar age and physique (Cavalry first) and the Tribunes select in rotating order to allocate to each legion (for fairness); until 300 Cavalry and 4200 Infantry are selected for each Legion. [The implication is that this happens within the one day upon which they are to assemble.  If so, then each 4x would have to be brought forward and allocated at a rate of every ~10 seconds, lasting over 12 hours; which seems extraordinarily fast.]

Once the 4200x Infantry are allocated for each legion, and the military oath taken, they are then told when to assemble without arms.  The 'officers' for the legion are then selected, totalling 200.

Of the remaining 4000x: firstly the youngest/poorest 1000x are selected to serve as Velites; the oldest 600x serve as Triarii; and then remaining 2400x are divided into 2 by age forming the hastati and principes.

I honestly see no opportunity for division into particular age brackets, as it's totally dependent on the 16,800 Infantry + 1,200 Cavalry chosen in any particular year.  I am, however, sure that there must be a degree of 'behind the scenes' dealing and even planning to ensure at least some broad level of prior experience!

I suspect dear Steven might have other ideas...

[Nick the Noodle]

Hi Steven

We don't always agree, but using Accensi (equipped as Triari) as camp guards, seems perfectly reasonable to me.

However, weren't Accensi at this time 'pen pushers', and we're simply talking about non combatants simply bearing arms while the actual soldiers are busy elsewhere?

[Mark Hygate]

I would appreciate any others from the Forum weighing in on the original question.....

[Mark Hygate]

Mark wrote:

Following the election of the 2x Consuls for the year, the censor for the military levy first selects 24x Military Tribunes. The first 14x must have completed at least 5 years prior servic; and the next 10x have completed at least 10 years (I must admit I am somewhat puzzled why it's not either 12+12 or 16+8 as that would seem more logical to me).

 

........................................

 

So here we find this “numerical mystical linkage” in the works of Polybius, which shows that Polybius is on my side. So how do you explain this away Mark? Coincidence perhaps? I'm calling this check mate.

"Check Mate"   - in what possible way?

Does Polybius mention anything about numerical ratios in his description of the organisation of the Roman Army?  Does anyone else?  In this re-interpretation, deducing somewhat different numbers to previous researchers descriptions; I see a singular structure designed for a specific tactical requirement and one, moreover, that lasts with only minor tweaks from this time until, quite possibly, Vegetius tries to reinvent it from a simple desire to uplift it to greater numbers!

No, the 14 + 10 wasn't entirely logical, until I stepped back and wondered why.  Then I realised I actually had the real-life experience myself that could be applied that made a simple answer the most likely one.  That this is simply the result of managing a hierarchical and experiential military structure!

24x Tribunes are required for 4x Legions - which is 6x each; for completely obvious reasons given the 60 sub-units they have to direct.  The need is to both grow and manage the experience you need, which would lead, indeed, to a simple requirement for 12x Senior and the 12x Junior to eventually replace them.  However, there will be 'wastage', at the very least through death (on or off the battlefield) and possibly long-term of temporary illness or injury.  The number of Juniors is therefore increased to 14x and thus the number of Seniors subsequently decreased to 10x.  That should certainly be a sufficient ratio (numbers of 'spare' Juniors) given the even larger pool of Decurions and Centurions from which to draw replacements for additional Juniors lost.

.....And with the 'King' having once escaped the imagined bonds - I'd really appreciate if anyone else would like to chime in with a 'that's not an unreasonable reinterpretation' - or a 'nope, it's wrong for this reason.....'

[Julian de Vries]

Steven James wrote:
Cicero comments that Rome was influenced by Pythagorean doctrines. Plutarch claims that Pythagoras was made a Roman citizen. Others write that Pythagoras changed the constitution of many cities in Italy.

Diogenes Laertius 8.14-15
And that is why the Lucanians and the Peucetians, the Messapians and the Romans remained attached to him and came to him to listen to his discourses.

Porphyry Life of Pythagoras 22
[22] As Aristoxenus says, there came to him Lucanians, Messapians, Peucetians, and Romans.

At this moment I am writing a paper that explains a possible discovery of a lost key of Pythagoras in relation to Roman history. This breakthrough was achieved in a very simple manner: You only need to listen very carefully to what the ancient Pythagorean philosophers say and calculate accordingly. Most modern scholars don't understand this principle and therefore start to doubt the histories, but I have proven the veracity of the primary sources, together with the help of a few chosen scholars that escaped the mind-bug which modern Academia has been afflicted with. With a humble disposition we have to admit the mundane truth that at one moment in time many Italian cities were addicted to the tenets of the Pythagorean doctrine.