III Augusta: 8,180 men strong?

[Mitra]

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.

You can make a photo scan? it should been very interesting to view the original inscription with the rock's majesty .

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".

I think this is a bad translation ( i dont understand why Le Bohec make this, in Delbruck volume is "three years ago" ); ante annum in latin is equivalent to "anno ante" but both the formules translated in french are "il y a trois ans" (in italian "tre anni prima", in english "three years ago"). For tell "il y a deux ans" the author of inscriptions can used the phrase "biennio post" or "post duos annos", why use three for tell two?

[Praefectusclassis]

(oops, actually it's p.82 in Le Bohec). Le Bohec references Ernout-Thomas, syntaxe, par. 137,2. That's all I can say. It must be logical in some way if both Le Bohec and Speidel accept this conclusion.
Speidel (p.32) indeed reasons the same way as Le Bohec, stating that there simply is not enough space for QVA[TERNOS], and chooses for QVI[NOS] instead. He says: "...and the foot of the presumed A fits an I just as well."
I can see if I can scan the photo in the book. Won't be too pretty though :wink:

[D B Campbell]

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

Thanks, Crispvs!

I thought Inchtuthil and some others were always wheeled out to prove the theory.

Inchtuthil's the only one that comes close, but the "join-the-dots" method of excavation makes it difficult to be certain.

The inscription text that i have found, speak "of three years ago" (ante annum tertium) ...

I have a vague recollection that the Romans used "inclusive" dating, meaning that "three days ago" would include the current day, and "three years ago" should include the current year. I may be wrong, but ante annum tertium (from now) would be 2004 (which seems only two years ago to us).

[Flavius Promotus]

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.

The only example I know of was COH XX Palmyrenorum, which, according to P. Dura 100 ['Morning Reports'/working rosters] was massively oversized at some time in 219 AD (?).
(You can find a detailed account of the problem in: Coello, Terence, 1996, Unit Sizes in the Late Roman Army (= BAR Int. Ser. 645), Oxford, 6-8).

According to P. Dura 100, the unit at this time comprised at least 945 men (whose names are known) and perhaps up to ca. 1050 (if gaps are taken into account). The sub total figures even reach something between 1390 an 1450 men!
The cohort was also subdivided into six centuries and five turmae, of which the centuries had an average size of 120-123 (sic!) men, and the turmae sizes between 120 and 149 (according to the figures in P. 100) or between 60-71 (if names are counted).

Coello, 7f.: "It may be what is recorded here is a normal quingenary cohort heavily reinforced because of the critical situation on the Eastern frontier [...]".

According to two other 'Morning Reports', COH XX Palmyrenorum had a total number of 923 men on 27 March (in 233 AD?) and 914 men on 30 March (= a loss of 1 % within 3 days).

Hope that helps

[Mitra]

I have a vague recollection that the Romans used "inclusive" dating, meaning that "three days ago" would include the current day, and "three years ago" should include the current year. I may be wrong, but ante annum tertium (from now) would be 2004 (which seems only two years ago to us).

Yes, i also thought this is a possibility, the days count in the calendar is also inclusive (and is also the only explication plausible for Boehec choice). My uncle, which come from south Italy also count the years in inclusive mode (a baby just born have a 1 year, at the first birthday start the 2nd year, in this inscription three years can be a period from 24 to 35 months ) . But this not justifies the free translation using the time conception of the translator (variable from culture to culture, for my uncle the Bohec translation is equivalent to 1 year) and not that of the original writer (fixed) using annotations.