III Augusta: 8,180 men strong?

[Jona Lendering]

III Augusta was situated in Lambaesis in what is now Algeria and protected a frontier zone of about 4000 km. Subunits, one of them nominally 960 men strong, are known to have stayed on at least three places in modern Libya, where almost no auxiliary troops appear to have been stationed. I am wondering if it is possible that III Augusta was exceptionally strong (5,300 men + 3 x 960 = 8,180).

Personally, I think that the standard form of a legion was precisely that: a standard, which could at times be changed. For example, VIII Augusta was almost something of an engineer corps and XXII Primigenia had some sort of fleet of its own. So, I would not be surprised that III Augusta had sixteen cohorts.

However, if we knew an example of a Roman unit that was too strong, I would be more confident, especially because I can not see a reason for this change of the standard form.

[D B Campbell]

An interesting thought, Jona.
There's the famous passage in Tacitus' Histories (III.22) which states that, in legion VII, "six centurions of the primi ordines were killed" (occisi sex primorum ordinum centuriones) in one battle.
On the face of it, this seems to imply that there may have been more than 6 (otherwise Tacitus would have said "all the centurions ...")!
(Quite apart from the fact that there are only supposed to be 5 primi ordines. )

[Mitra]

However, if we knew an example of a Roman unit that was too strong, I would be more confident, especially because I can not see a reason for this change of the standard form.

I think isn't very probable an exceptional strength for this legion; the lambaesis inscription report strong detachments (cohort + men from the centuries) sent to many stationes, situation which can blocks legion's drill (improbable if the legion have always 5000 men to the headquarter castrum)

"
pro causa ves[tra 3 quae excu]/[sa]nda vobis aput
(!)
me fuissent omnia mihi pro vobis ipse di[xit quod] / cohors abest
quod omnibus
annis per vices in officium pr[ocon]/sulis mittitur quod ante annum
tertium
cohortem et qua[ternos] / ex centuris in supplementum comparum
tertianorum
dedis/tis quod multae quod diversae stationes vos distinent quod /
nostra
memoria bis non tantum mutastis castra sed et nova fecis/tis ob
haec excusatos
vos hab[erem si legio] diu exercitatione cessas/set sed nihil aut
cessavi[stis
3] / vobis excusatione[3]
"

>Quite apart from the fact that there are only supposed to be 5 primi >ordines.

And if on suppose that all the legions have a five centuries first cohort.

[Crispvs]

I thought that the idea of five double sized centuries in the first cohort was based on interpretations of particular barrack blocks at certain Roman forts. Was I wrong about this? If so, where does our information come from about the 800 strong first cohort?

Crispvs :roll:

[Praefectusclassis]

Yes, that's mainly what it comes from and seems to have been only a temporary thing. Jona, why is it necessary that the full legion was at Lambaesis all the time? Most legions were permanently spread out all over the place with bigger and smaller vexillationes going all kinds of places.

[Jona Lendering]

ona, why is it necessary that the full legion was at Lambaesis all the time? Most legions were permanently spread out all over the place with bigger and smaller vexillationes going all kinds of places.

The issue is not so much whether they were in Lambaesis, but that 4,000 km is so very, very long, and auxiliaries are so very, very rare. Perhaps soldiers who are otherwise called auxiliaries are, in Africa, added to the legion - that's the idea. Why, I don't know, but it's strange that in the Tripolitana alone the castella are occupied by legionaries.

[Praefectusclassis]

Yes, it is. But vexillationes from legions are in the second century sometimes almost permanent units eons away from their mother unit. So not really weird.
How's this: the Romans may have considered Africa a province that did not need the full, concentrated hitting power of a legion. However, instead of replacing the entire legion with auxiliaries, they parcelled it out wherever they needed it.
The new commentaries on Hadrian's speeches (by Speidel & Le Bohec) may be helpful here.

Edit----

Yup, here we go:
Field two of the inscription (to the pili):
"that a cohort is away, because, taking turns, one is sent every year to the staff of the Proconsul; that two years ago you have a cohort and five men from each centuria to the fellow third legion, that many and far-flung outposts keep you scattered..." And, btw, auxiliaries figure in the speech too. The legatus of III Augusta, as provincial governor, had command of three alae and six or more cohorts (equitatate according to Speidel).

[D B Campbell]

I thought that the idea of five double sized centuries in the first cohort was based on interpretations of particular barrack blocks at certain Roman forts. Was I wrong about this? If so, where does our information come from about the 800 strong first cohort?

Quite the reverse, Crispus. Archaeology hasn't been any help here at all. It's Hyginus who says that the First Cohort was double-sized.

In my Roman Legionary Fortresses book, I included plans (splendidly drafted by Dietwulf Baatz) of the supposed First Cohort barracks from the eight fortresses where they've been tentatively identified. Unfortunately, not a single one clearly corroborates the theory.

[Praefectusclassis]

:lol: Really? I thought Inchtuthil and some others were always wheeled out to prove the theory. Oh well, learned something new.

[Jona Lendering]

Yes, it is. But vexillationes from legions are in the second century sometimes almost permanent units eons away from their mother unit. So not really weird. [etc.]

Thanks Jasper!

[Crispvs]

Thanks Duncan.

1 Laude point given for clearing up another of what Mike Bishop refers to as factoids.

Crispvs

[Mitra]

"that two years ago you have a cohort and five men from each centuria to the fellow third legion,"

Is possible a translation error of Speidel/Le Bohec book in english language? The inscription text than i have found, speak "of three years ago" (ante annum tertium) and four men for century (quaternos)

[Praefectusclassis]

Hi Davide,
The Speidel edition - which I copied this from - has qui[nos] with the i dotted, so I suppose that reconstruction is somewhat unsure.
And is 'ante annum tertium' not 'before the third year', ie two?

[Mitra]

The strange is than i have found qua[..] not qui[..].

The formule 'ante annum tertium' is used by Cicero (ante diem tertium) with the sense of "three years(days) ago"

Davide

[Praefectusclassis]

Hi Davide,
Just before I went to work I looked at the Bohec edition, which does mention the qua... On the accompanying photo, however, it's clear to see that all letters in qua/i are rather damaged and the break is in the middle of the last letter. Le Bohec notes that there is only space for an emendation to qua[tern(os)], which would make it the only abbreviation in this text. That may be why Speidel chose qui[nos], which does fit completely.
The Le Bohec edition (p.81) also reads "Two years ago", according to them it needs to be read as 'anno tertio ante', which translates as the French "Il y a deux ans".