Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: [Historiae] History of the Legio (late 4th, 5th and 6th century)

  1. #1
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default [Historiae] History of the Legio (late 4th, 5th and 6th century)





    History

    The first question remains, if we start to discuss the Legions of the 6th and early 7th century, what was the name of those units.
    Was the term Legio, Cohors or Centuriae outdated - or still valid?




    The Legion of the Ancients

    source text taken from Sir William Smith

    It will be observed that Polybios takes no notice of the cohort, a division of the Legion mentioned so often in the Roman writers.
    Hence Salmasius and other distinguished scholars have suppost that the cohort had no existence until the time of Marius, and although named by Livy almost immediately after the expulsion of the kings (II 11), and repeatedly afterwards (e.g.XXVII 13,41) he may be supposed to speak proleptically.
    But in a quotation preserved by A.Gellius (N.A. XVI 4) from the treatise De Re Militari of Cincius, who is generally admitted be Cincius Alimentus (contemporary of Hannibal) we find the Cohort not only named but specifically defined.
    In legione sunt centuriae sexaginta, manipuli triginta, cohortes decem.
    And Polybius himself uses the Latin Word Cohors or Koortis twice in his history of Scipio`s Spanish campaigns (XI 23,33).

    It must be borne in mind that Polybius uses the words Tagma,Semaia and Speira as the representative of Cohors.

    When the soldiers of the Legion were classified as Velites, Hastati, Principes and Triarii, the cohort contained 400, each cohort would consist of 60 Triarii, 120 Principes, 120 Hastati, and 100 Velites, in all 400 men.
    The number of Cohorts in a Legion being always ten (Cic Philip IV 27) and the Cohorts,during the republic, being all equal to each other, the strength of the Legion, and thus a different periods ranged between the limits of 300 and 600.
    They were regulary numbered from 1 to 10, the Centurion of the 1st Cohort was the guardian of the eagle, and hence the 1st Cohort seems always to have been regarded as superior in dignity to the rest.
    Caes B.C. III 64, Cic. ad Att 20)
    From some expressions in the descriptions given by Caesar of the battle of Pharsalia, it has been inferred that even then the 1st Cohorts in the Legion were more numerous than the rest, and this was certainly the case under the empire when they were termed Cohortes Milliariae, and contained twice as many soldiers as the others.

    Thus a Legion described by Hygenius amounted to 5280 men,divided into 10 Cohorts, and of these, the first, which had the charge of the eagle, consited of 960 men, while the remaining nine had 480 each.

    The word Cohort lasted as long as the word Legion, and even longer, for not only does Ammianus (XXI 13, XXIII 5) speak of centuries and cohorts, as a military term, is met with in authors after Justinian.
    Some writers, especially Le Beau in his "Memoires"on the Legion, maintain that, after the distinctions between Hastati, Principes and Triarii were abolished, and the Legion was marshalled in Cohorts, the division into Maniples was no longer practised, and that the term manipulus must from this time be understood to indicate either a small number of men indefinitely, or a mass of ten soldiers quartered in the same tent.





    Manipulus et Lochoi

    The famous Manipulus.
    Has it survived? Was it still 160 or even 200 strong? Or was it a name for something else during the late antiquity?

    Amm XXI 13 9
    omnes centurias et manipulos et cohortes in concionem convocabat.
    [...]he (Constantius) convened all the centuries and maniples and Cohors[...]

    However, I think in the text of Vegetius we find an answer for the mystery of the manipulus:
    Veg II 13
    here I can read that the contubernia (tent community of 8-10 men) becomes surprinsingly the manipulus because "they fight hand in hand". It is probably just a kind of colloquial term.
    contubernium autem manipulus vacabantur ab eo, quod coniunctis manibus pariter dimicabant.

    And this would suggest that the text of Procopius is still valid for the 6th century. The Numerus was, acc. Procopius, partitioned or sub-divided in "Lochoi".
    BG IV 35,18
    The Lochoi is just another greek term (1:1 translation) for contubernia (tent community of 8-10 men).

    In this case the answer is probably simple now concerning the sub-divisions of Cohors and Numeri of the 5th and 6th century.
    They were just sub-divided by units of 100 (for what we have indeed payrical evidence in Egypt (6th century!) and commanded by the Centenarii - and were therefore also called centuriae (specualtive, however logically) - the centuria was finally sub-divided by the (new!)manipulus (=lochoi) = that is the tent community of 8-10 men or regarding the Strategikon 8-16 for infantry. It has howver nothing to do with the ancient maniples.
    That the term "lochos" is mentioned several times by Prokopius and Malalas in the meaning of a Legion or Cohors - or just a part of it - of their own time-frame is maybe just a colloquial term. Here I may say that research from my side is still ongoing.


    ΠΡΟΚΟΠΙΟΥ ΚΑΙΣΑΡΕΩΣ ΠΕΡΙ ΚΤΙΣΜΑΤΩΝ - Prokopius; Buildings
    βιβλίον Γ´ 4 16
    [...] Μελιτηνὴ μὲν τὸ χωρίον, λεγεὼν δὲ ὁ λόχος ἐπωνομάζετο.[...]
    [...] Melitene was the city, (and) Legion was the Lochos (called or defined).[...]
    Procopius is referring here to Melitene and its ancient garrison. So, in his own time the term λόχος also refers to a Legion. We see that term also on some Papyri in Egypt and Syria, private letters as well official supply lists for Numeri.

    We find also the office of t
    he Ducenarius. This officer was probably not just a categorizatzion regarding the salary-group. It is even possible that this officer commanded 2 centuriae or 200 men - which has however nothing to do with the old manipulus.

    We just have to assume that there were for a certain time two different groups. First, the Centurie with 100 men. On the other hand a group of 200 men - whose name, however, is not known today.






    Army of the 4th and 5th century

    We know that some Legions after or during the era of Diocletian or Constantine were divided in several detachments. A complete list of all late antiquity Legions and its detachments is given in the academical elaboration of Theodor Mommson.
    source: Das Römische Militärwesen seit Diocletian /pages 202-204

    It is well known that the old legions with round about 6000 men were not the same anymore in the era after 360AD (+/-)
    compare about this topic the discussion of E.Kuhn "die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des Römischen Reiches" page 140
    This book (respectively the pages 140 and 141) provides a good list with examples of battles and operations of soldiers and the number of Legions.

    some examples of the Legions and its strength
    [1] In 359 the small city Amida was defended by seven Legions.
    Amm XVIII 9,3 XIX 2,14

    [2] For a small causcasian campaign (368-370) twelve Legions were used
    AMM XXVII 12,16

    [3] ...and 5 Legions of Dalmatia marched to Rome to defend the city during the reign of Honorius against Alaric - altogether 6000 strong.
    Zos. 5,45, 1.
    (edit: it is not sure if Zosimus is speaking about Legions. If he speaks about Legions he calls them normally as "Legions" - in our case he speaks about regiments.
    [...]The affairs of Rome being now in no better condition than before, the emperor sent for five regiments of soldiers, who were quartered in Dalmatia, to guard the city of Rome. These regiments consisted of six thousand men, who for strength and discipline were the flower of the whole Roman army.[...]
    In my opinion the "flower" of the empire was still the elite-legion beside some aux.palatina, however, my suspicion could be wrong.

    After reading few of my picked sources it would be wrong to say that THE Legions were reduced in size.
    Vegetius has explained that its normal strength was still 6100.
    Veg II 6, furthermore I 17 and II 2
    And at this time I want remind once more that a careful reading of Vegetius shows that he clearly differs between the time of the ancients - and his own time span. This is partially directly said by him - or indirectly by observing the grammar he used.

    However, the Notitia proves as well that many, if not all, of them were splitted in several detachments.
    Just take the example of the register of Seeck (page 309 and on) or Th.Mommsen (source see above) to see that XIII gemina was splitted in 7 detachments, the II adiutrix, V Macedonia and XII Gemina was splitted by 6 detachments. Other Legions were splitted by 3 or 4 parts only.

    This unbalanced distribution shows that the new order was not performed ad-hoc according a special system or scheme - developed by the Romans. Obviously it was the result of a slow and gradually process. When this process has begun or the exact reasons for it is in my opinion and according my researches still highly debatable and mostly based on speculations.

    The tactical body of the imperial roman time was the Cohors - and not the Legion. And in my elaboration you will see that the "New-Legion" had more or less the same size like the Cohors Miliaria (1000-1200men).
    It is possible that the splitting of the Legions was produced indirectly by the establishment of a central mobile field army. The expeditional armies of Diocletion were still based on Vexillationes of the frontier or border Legions or regiments.
    We also know that Diocletian still deployed new "full-Legions" for the borders/frontiers like the III Diocletiana, I Iovia or II Herculia - with a suggested strength of about 5000-6000 men.

    However, after the establishment of his new mobile field army, many of those transfered detachments became probably a fixed part of those mobile forces - respectively they simply weren't sent back to his mother Legion or head-quarters.
    Those detachments were supported by new deployed units of comitatenses and to a certain degree we can guess that those new deployed "detachments" (or better said "New-Legions" - because a new deployed detachment is a contradiction in term) had a size which was identical with that of the detachments.
    By the way, that's exactly the evolution of unit sizes of "Numeri" of the mid 5th to 6th century (gr. Arithmoi - see Numerus Iustinianon in Hermupolis - which was 508 strong).
    compare also Index of ND,Seeck, page 320 and on

    The Notitia calls 174 Legions - opposed to the 33 Legions of the old military order - we should know that those Legions weren't full sized Legions. Otherwise we come to absurd numbers concerning the complete size of the roman army if we take the number of 6000 for the new 141 Legions.
    Certainly many of the old Limitanei or frontier legions had still the complete nominal size. While checking the register of the frontier Legions you can observe that some provinces still had the same number (or a little increased number) of Legions. It is almost excluded that those Legions were decreased in number or splitted in detachments - otherwise the complete border section had been bared or uncovered.

    Sure, the military collapse of the 5th century was also generated by weak border defenses, anyhow, this collapse was also the result of different circumstances (e.g. financial problems).
    ! In the 4th century the Legion was normally commanded by a praepositus or tribunus. The old Full-Legion was commanded by a praefectus. About the differences, and why this issue is important to clearify the legions' strength will be discussed later. !

    The Notitia is not helpful to clearify this question because it wasn't edited after a unique or uniformly system - as I have shown in the questions about the Auxillaries. Probably it just shows the head-quarters of the legion and not the actual location of the Legion. In some chapters of the ND you find the praefectus legionis, other chapters are naming the Legion only.
    We can guess that even after the splitting of the Legions a common head-quarter of all detachments was still existing.
    As first result we can say that the Legions of the mobile field armies were reduced in size compared to the full-Legions. During the time of the last editing of the ND the Legions had probably an official nominal paper-strength like 80 or 90 years before - but as said - it was just a paper strength.
    In the mid/late 5th century and 6th century new names were used to describe the troops - which was also indirectly a confirmation of the actual unit sizes. Later more about this.

    The real strength of the "New-Legion" is not evidenced. We know that some Legions were splitted in detachments of 2 to 7 parts (sources see above). But it is difficult and questionable to get any clear and solid result by taking the numbers of those single detachments.
    Perhaps the mother Legion had before a reduced size in general (in this case a detachment was probably smaller than a detachment of a Legion 6100 strong).
    On the other hand we should also accept that between Constantine and the last edited version of the ND more than 100 years were gone - 100 years full of wars. Detachments were deployed, others disappeared.

    But we can speculate a little bit, speculations which are underlined and supported by several sources and evidences.
    Most of the Legions' commanders in the mid/late 4th century were Tribuni. Concerning the old order 6 Tribuni were part of all Legions.
    It is possible that the Legions were divided by 6 and all Tribuni commanded 1000 men. If the mother legion was far smaller than 6000 - it is also possible that other numbers occured concerning the splitting. Perhaps a quarter or just one-third?
    This is difficult to assess.


    The roman system was maybe an archetype or model for germans as well. Procopius explains that the Vandals nominated 80 Tribuns (or called by him chiliarchous) - to suggest that they were 80.000 strong (which was not the case as we know - since the complete multi-ethnic group probably numbered 80.000).
    To suggest that the "New-Legion" was 1000 strong is also matching other numbers concerning other troop-types - those were throughout 500 strong.
    Concerning Ammianus we know that some Legions sent out units of 500 or 300 men.
    AMM XXXI 10,13 XX 4,2 XXXI 11,2 XIX 6,11

    Concerning the inner order of the old "Full-Legion" we are dependent on the tales of Vegetius (II 6).
    Of course, we should always be careful with statements like "that was so" - just because it is described by Vegetius.
    On the other hand he is in this case very clear concerning his statements and explanations regarding the "ancient" Legion. I personally don't believe that he is speaking "out of the blue".
    As I explained in another elaboration: we also should read carefully his tales, especially concerning the past and present tense of his sentences.
    In our case we are lucky: Explicitly, he say that he don't want speak about his time, but about "the old order" (II 7)
    Concerning all researches he don't speak neither about the Hyginic Legion (De Munitionibus Castrorum by Pseudo-Hyginus), nor about any older Legion.
    Also the fact that he describes the commander of the complete Legion as "praefectus" (II 9) means that he is speaking about the time after Gallienus.
    In this case we can use his tales for the time of the end of the 3rd century until the end of the 4th century.

    The "normal" Legion of Vegetius was 6100 strong, but even a bigger number was sometimes reached if more than 1 cohort had a double strength. The Legion was sub-divided by 10 Cohorts - the 1st had 1105 men, the rest was 555 strong. Therfore the 1st Cohort was sub-divided by 10 centuriae, the rest just by 5.
    As exlained at the beginning of my elaboration, the old Maniple-order was probably gone - the name Manipulus was used to described the tent-community (contubernia or lochos) (Veg. II 13).
    One centuria was composed by 10 manipulares (10 x 8 or 10 x 10 or even 10 x 16 is possible).

    The Legion was commanded by a praefectus, the 1st cohort was commanded by a Tribunus, the 2nd to 10th cohort was commanded by a tribunus or praepositus. The Centuria was commanded by a Centurion (later centenarius - commanding definitively just 100 men).
    The legion was organized on battle field in 2 rows (in german "Treffen" - 2 waves of units).
    If both waves or rows had different kind of equipment is not certainly clearified. Legionaries during the reign of Hadrian were equiped with Pilum and Lancea (Arrian edition Hercher §15-18).
    Vegetius described the weapons of the 1st to 5th cohorts - everybody had worn 2 Pila. However, later he just say that the second row was equipped in a similar way. Probably the lancea was still valid and used?? (Veg III 14).

    It is also a little surpise that the Legion of Vegetius was connected again with cavalry. 726 cavalrymen were attached to the Legion, 132 for the 1st cohort, the other cohorts had 66 mounted soldiers. (Veg I 6)
    It is well known that the cavalry was detached from its mother Legions round about in the middle of the 3rd century - resulting in a new unit called Promoti.
    In the first moment everybody would say that the statement of vegetius is faulty and not correct - but that what he says it is evidenced due to inscriptions!
    One inscription says that the new deployed Legion of Lanciarii (CIL VI 2759 2787 32943) included a schola equitum (CIL VI 32965 Valerio Maxentio aequiti ex numero lanciarorum. Vixit annos XXVI, militavit annos VI. Iscola aequitum bene merenti fecit).
    Once more Vegetius is right.

    We may suggest that the cavalry was - at least temporarily - attached to some Legions again (just elite Legions?). However, with Constantine this procedure was probably removed again - due to the separation of the new cavalry commands (Mag. Equitum). But it is also possible that some Legions still had a certain proportion of cavalry within the legion during the 4th century.

    Whereas we have some informations about the old "Full-Legion" - we can only speculate about the inner order of the "New-Legion".
    It is basically impossible that it was sub-divided by cohorts - simply because the strength was just something between 1000, 1200 or 1500. The size was probably that of a Cohors miliaria. Doubtless it was still organized in centuriae and contubernia.

    The question remains if 2 centuriae were still combined to one superior unit - the old manipulus. The Hyginic system of the early 3rd century is still completely based on this system - but in our time there is no sign of this system anymore. However, the office of the ducenarius is named by Vegetius - an officer who commanded 200 men (Veg II 8).
    On the other hand it was for sure not an officer who commanded 2 centuriae. It is very likely that 2 different kinds of "main" tactical units were existing in the Legions as well as within the Cohorts (also within the Numeri/Arithmoi of the mid 5th and 6th century).
    Units 100 strong, commanded by the centenarius - and units 200 strong - whose tactical name is unknown, commanded by the ducenarius. Once I gave some sources of evidenced ducenarii of cavalry and infantry units. I will repeat it once more when I find some time and write them down here.

    The time of unbalanced units has begun - a tactical system which was also taken officially by the Romans during the 6th and 7th century to disinform the enemy about the real strength of the army - as described by the Strategikon (I 4 ; II 19 ; III 2).




    Codex Iustinianus

    The content of the Codex Iustinianus illustrates that even in the 6th Century the old terms for troops such as Legio, Cohors, and Vexillatio were still valid. For example:

    _______________________________________________________

    Legio, in Codex Iustinianus, XII, 35, 14 or
    Cohors, XII, 42, 1 or
    Vexillatio, XII, 37,8.
    _______________________________________________________

    These terms were still in official use otherwise they would not have been included in the Codex. It is also doubtful that a term which was (allegedly) completely outdated in 420 AD would have survived into the 6th Century only to be mentioned again – as though by chance – by Procopius as Legionos – or as a smaller tactical unit such as the Noumeros/Arithmos.
    Even if one compares both available translations of the Codex (Constitutio Cordi Codex Repetitae Praelectionis), these terms are still included.


    Let us take, therefore, one of the last chapters of the Codex which refers to this late era:
    _______________________________________________________

    Title XLIII. Concerning Furloughs
    1 – The Emperors’ Arcadius and Honorius.
    No commander, chief of cohorts, their lieutenants or friends, shall be permitted, at any time during an expedition, to grant soldiers leave of absence from the camp and their standards, even in places where they are stationed, no matter what their rank may be.

    Furthermore, for the 349 AD:
    Title LXII. Concerning the estates of decurions, masters of ships, attendants of military cohorts, and employees in the arsenals.
    3 – The Same Emperor to Rufinus, Praetorian Prefect.
    When anyone attached to a cohort dies intestate and without leaving heirs, We order that his estate shall belong, not to the treasury, but to the other members of the corps in the same province.
    Given on the Fifth of the kalends of January, during the Consulate of Limenius and Catulinus

    Or from the time-frame of Leo:
    Title XXXII Bishops, along with the natives and residents of the provinces, shall notify the Emperor whom they desire to have as Governors. The said Governors shall be gratuitously appointed, but will be required to furnish a bond to the treasury; and where the Bishops and the inhabitants of the provinces neglect to ask for a Governor, they cannot complain of him who is sent to them in this capacity, no matter what he may do with reference to the collection of public taxes.
    One and Hundred and Forty-Ninth New Constitution.
    Chapter II.
    (. . . ) and towns from the attacks of robbers and others living a disorderly life. It is also by means of taxation that the other cohorts receive what is allotted to them, that the walls are repaired, cities fortified, public baths heated and, finally, the theatres intended for the entertainment of Our subjects supported.




    Ordines and Centuries

    Phil Barker attempted to explain (in The Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome) the usage of Ordines or Ordos which – according to his research – replaced the old Manipulares. Well, this and other statements in his book are now outdated. It is not just a term like ‘Ordo’ which is mistaken – there are also other elements which are doubtful.
    Many scholars of the last century have tried to explain the Army of Belisarius and they used terms and a general wording which was historically used in mauals like the Tactika. This is however completely beyond our time frame.

    We have to check the classical source – the primary sources – to find a better and more accurate description about tactical units:

    Flavius Vegetius Renatus
    De Re Militari
    Book II: The Organisation of the Legion

    Subchapter THE OFFICERS OF THE LEGION
    (. . . ) The officers who in action commanded the orders or divisions are called Ordinarii. The Augustales were added by Augustus to the Ordinarii (. . .)
    (. . .) Ordinarii dicuntur qui in proelio (quia primi sunt,) ordines ducunt. Agustales appellantur qui ab Augusto ordinarii iuncti sunt. (. . . )

    And here we see the confusion with the translation. The term "or divisions" is not mentioned in the original text and was added in modern times (in the English version!). That means an Ordo is not the same like a division or unit in general.

    It is suggested by Robert Grosse (citation will be added soon) that it was just a pool of officers – and was not referring to a real military detachment as such.

    Sir William Smith
    Ordo generally signifies a century, and ordinum ductor is synonymous with centurio, and ducere honestum ordinem means to be one of the principal centurions in a Legion. On the other hand, in the celebrated chapter in Livy (VIII 8), ordo undoubtedly denotes one of the original maniples, and when we read in book XIII 34 "mihi T. Quinctius Flaminius decumum ordinem hastatum adsignavit", the speaker seems to declare that he had been raised from the ranks to the post of a centurion in the 10th maniple of the Hastati.

    _______________________________________________________

    Please check also the last chapter of this post: Lydus and the army of the 6th century. Here you'll find a description about officers. And one "group of officers" was called Ordines.

    The minor officers or sergeants are called by Ammianus as follows:

    Principia
    Amm XXII 3, 2 – praesentibus Iovianorum Herculianorumque principiis et tribunis
    That is just one example which is mentioned many times. Although it is not always clear if Ammianus is describing one officer or a group of such men.

    Primi ordines
    Amm XIX 6, 3 – tribunis primisque ordinibus

    Primores
    Amm XXIX 5, 22 – sagittariorum vero primoribus


    _______________________________________________________

    In Procopius I have never read about these officers. However, in the Greek written papyri we can find them again. This time called Priores, Protoi, and Proteuontes. Also: Ordinarioi. This is detailed in the book by Maspero (Organisation militaire de l'Egypte byzantine on pages 104 and 106 )

    It is also interesting and therefore worth checking on the officer called a Ducenarius. He was according to Vegetius the commander of 2 centuries or 200 soldiers – which was undoubtedly the main tactical unit.

    Veg II 8 – item primus hastatus duas centurias(ie: formed by 2 centuries), id east CC (meaning – or 200) hommines ducebat in acie secunda (meaning – placed in the second line), quem nunc ducenarium vocant.

    And this is exactly the description of the late Roman Numerus (Noumeros) or named by Procopius as the Arithmos.
    This number of 200 and the name of the tactical unit is confirmed for the first time by the Edictum Anastasii (page 138 sec.7 and page 151). This source clearly speaks of a strength of 200 men for the Numerus.

    Basically we will see that all former legions or other troop types were called Numeri. Therefore it is right now difficult to believe that a former legion was just 200 strong. In this case my upper example (and its evidence) is maybe misleading.
    The reason is probably more simple.
    We have to accept the fact the a Numerus was a bigger unit of perhaps 500, 800, 1000 or even more large (e.g. a Legion, an Auxilium, a Cohors or something else). And on the other hand we find smaller troops and tactical units (esp in the west) of about 200, 250 and 300 men - also classified as Numerus.





    Officers


    this title belongs in general to the older military order, however, it is also attested during the late antiquity.
    The ND for example lists several times a "praefectus legionis".

    Probably the command disappeared - step by step of course - when the legion was splitted in detachments, and vacant chairs were replaced by Tribuni and/or praepositi. Later more about this.

    Occasionally we read about this office in Codex Theodos. VII 20,2 (about the year 320)
    praefecti, tribuni, viri eminentissimi. Those praefecti are standing behind the Tribuni concerning its ranking and therfore are probably identically with the late praepositi.

    We find the praefectus alae, gentilium (see AMM XXIX 5,21 / pref. gentis), praefectus classis, praefectus vigilum (ND OCC IV 4), praef. ripae legionis.

    We find 2 border Legions in each of the provinces of Scythiae and Moesia secunda. All praefecti of those Legions were supported by 2 praefecti ripae - commanding 5 Cohorts stationed river upstream and downriver. Furtermore, both provinces had a fifth (bank-)praefectus - commanding the ships which belonged to the Legions. Especially the latter office is another sign for the ongoing splitting of the Legion.

    Praiphektos Ioustinianon - a title which was worn in the 6th century by the Dux Thebaidos - a command about a unit which was deployed by Justinian or a unit named after Justinian.
    See troop list of Maspero page 80.



    it was a title which stood - concerning the ranking - behind that of the tribunus. This is also underlined by an inscription of Hissarlik and the wording of several laws.
    The Tribun is always mentioned first in Theodos. VII 4,36 ; VII 9,2 ; XI 18, 1 ; XII 1,113.

    The ND lists the praepositus in combination with numeri, militum and equitum. Furthermore the praepositus is evidenced within
    the Scholae (Theodos. VI 13,1 ; the same text mentioned in Cod.Iust. XII 11,1)
    the Legion (Theodos. VII 20,10)
    Cohortis (Theodos. VII 20,10, so long as the full sized legion was existing the Cohorts had a Praepositus or Tribunus, see Veg. II,12)
    Probably the office had a kind of representative role within the late army. This is suggested by following sentence found in Theodos. VII 20,10 for the year 369:
    [...]si praepositus Romanae legionis vel cohortis gesserit tribunatum. [...]
    my translation:
    [...] if the praepositus of a roman Legion or Cohort bear the tribuneship/office of tribune [...]

    praepositus limitis
    the african, mauretanian and tripolitanian limes was sub-divided by several military districts - and all of them were commanded by a praepositus.
    They were subordinated by the Comes Africae, Dux Mauretaniae and Dux Tripolitanae.
    ND OCC XXV 21-36 ; ND XXX 12-19 ; XXXI 18-28

    Another interesting example: One praepositus laetis (Theodos. VII 20,10) replaced the office of a praefectus laetorum et gentilium - a commander of a so called barbarian settlement (ND OCC XLII 33-44).

    The praepositus castri (Theodos. VII 9,1 ; 12,1 ; VIII 7,11) was the commander of a Castellum or Castra. This office was called before praefectus castrorum (edict. Anast. §11 - compare with Mommsen, Militärwesen, page 270-276)



    the Tribunus was basically the real new officer of all main tactical units.
    In deep purism Procopius calls him Archon katalogou ippikou (BP. I,15,15) or Archon ton Pelon (BG I 28,25), sometimes also egemon (Hegemon) katalogou ippikou or pelon (BV II 15,50).
    Other authors are calling him Taxiarchos (e.g Agathias I 11 / Theophyl. Simok. II 3,1).
    However, it is also possible that some of those names referred to praepositi as well!

    The official title was always Tribounos (See also Strategikon I 3).
    Nearly all troops were, as mentioned, commanded by Tribuns.
    Their position was comparatively independant - except they served within the mobile field armies.

    Following tribuni are attested:
    tribunus scholae
    a very powerful and important office. Emperor Valentinian I was such a tribune.
    AMM XXV 10,9 scutatorium secunda schola
    This office had the same status like the vicarius (Theodos. VI 10,3)
    He received the comitiva primi ordinis
    (Theodos. VI 13,1)
    ...and had worn the rank as spectabilis (Cod. Iust. XII 29,1)
    He was subordinated under the Magister Officiorum - another office which was originally called Tribunus et magister officorum (Theodos. XVI 10,1)

    tribunus legionis, means the leader of a detachment or new deployed Legion.
    (AMM XIX 5,3 ; XXII 3,2 ; XXX 1,7)
    tribunus auxilii
    (AMM XVI 11,9 ; 12,63 ; XXV 6,3 ; XXVII 2,9)
    tribunus gentis (settled barbarian militias)
    ND OCC XXXV31 : tribunus gentis per raetias deputatae

    tribunus cohortis
    attested for the independent cohorts
    (Codex Iust. XII 42,1 , furthermore: inscription CIL VI 1156: tribunus cohortium urbanarum; put between 317 and 337)
    for legionary cohorts
    Veg II 17 [...]reliquae cohortes, prout principi placuisset, a tribunis vel a praepositis regebantur.[...]
    ! That usage of the imperfect concerning the grammar (or past tense) is in my opinion another sign that at the end of the 4th century or at beginning of the 5th century - no Legion was left which was subdivided by Cohorts. !

    In Egypt the Tribune was commander of a unit as well as governor of the affected city. Therfore many Papyri are naming the Tribune together with the city.
    The author Maspero explains in his book several times that many of those egyptian tribuni were many times Magnates, landowners, and had actually little to do with warfare. This evolution became problematic during the 7th century - when the arbabic invaders met little resistance - on the other side we see in this example another pre-stage concerning the byzantine Themas.

    Furthmore we find evidences about a tribunus classis, vacans, honorarius.
    The vicarius tribuni was the deputy of the commander. The main Tribun himself was also sometimes the deputy of another unit.





    Problems and Confusions

    Flavius Vegetius Renatus
    De Re Militari
    Book II: The Organisation of the Legion

    Vegetius is always clearly writing – in terms of the spelling, that is – in the present tense and the past tense.
    Most of the time, it is easy to differentiate when he is discussing the circumstances regarding the Legions of Vespasian, for example, or Gallienus and when he writes about the late 4th and 5th Century. Often for example he writes about ‘the ancients’, ‘ the ancients gave us’ or ‘the ancients told us’ . . .

    _______________________________________________________

    Chapter The Officers of the Legion
    (. . .) They had also Centurions appointed to each century, now called Centenarii and Decani - who commanded ten men, now called heads of messes (. . .)
    The above quote is a good example of past and present. Vegetius illustrates a number of excellent analogies. He clearly suggests that the Centurions (now called Centenarii) still exist at the time of his writing.

    Interestingly enough, we see the same evolution in the case of the post-Roman states. For example, the Goths – and also the Vandals – divided their troops by 1,000, 500 and 100. I don’t want to go into too much detail but I would like to add that ‘the thousands’ from the Germanic states were just a number relating to the civilian administration – not the army as such – even if we know an officer named with Thiufanus (Millenarius). However the 500 and 100s were military units. This system was copied from the late Romans (by the Visigoths and the Ostrogoth, the Vandals, and partially by the Franks).

    Chapter Centuries and Ensigns of the Foot
    (. . . ) The ancients, knowing the ranks were easily disordered in the confusion of the action, divided the cohorts into centuries and gave each century an ensign inscribed (. . .)





    Theophylactus Simocatta and the IIII Parthica





    The author of the book Historiae is Theophylactus Simocatta - it contains historical tales, facts and background infos until 603AD.
    He is probably the last ancient author of the antiquity. He clearly writes (marked in red) in book II chapter 6 that the Kouartoparthoi were organized or classified as katalogos (a term used by purists! During his era the infantry was still classified as Arithmos =Numerus) and garrisoned in Beroea. Please have this in mind - I will continue later with the story...

    _______________________________________________________

    first of all the original page:

    _______________________________________________________

    We also know that the common (Latin) unit name for nearly all tactical units was the "Numerus". We know this because the Numerus is mentioned in the edictum anastasii, in the tales from Procopius, Malalas and Agathias.

    The Greek equivalent (the Greek term) in the 5th and 6th centuries, and partially until mid 7th Century, for this was Arithmos, telos, katalogos or tagma. As said before, the katalogos was basically a term for graeco-roman purists.

    _______________________________________________________

    Arithmos and Katalogos Nov. C II 2 ; C III 3

    TelosProcopius BG I 23,3

    Tagma (or sometimes called Taxis) this was the term used many times by Agathias.

    Furthermore Nov CXLVIII 2 or Ed. XIII, 9.18

    unius numeri limitaneorum - Codex Iustinianus I 27,2 § 8

    _______________________________________________________

    It also becomes interesting if we note that the Latinized version of the Arithmon Ioustinianon is called Noumidon Ioustinianon.
    (unedited London Papyri, analyzed by Maspero)

    Well, now we know that our Latin Numerus is indeed called in Greek Arithmos or (some years later) Katalogos - which is mentioned by all the authors the period under discussion here.

    _______________________________________________________

    And now back to our Kouartoparthoi.
    We know that this is a unit which was had been previously called IIII Parthica (or called by Procopius = Quartaparthica).
    This evolution can be followed directly to the Notitia Dignitatum. If the late Legio IIII Parthica was organized as katalogos (which is obviously the case here), and it was the equivalent of the Numerus, then we have the answer.
    We also know that all Numeri were subdivided by Centuriae (See previously).
    If a Greek word was used to describe the Centuria (ekanontarchiai) - or still a latin one - is does not matter. The result is the same.
    This and some other examples underline and support the statements of the Cod. Iust., Procopius, Agathias, Malalas, Theophylactus Simocatta and the edictum that the Legions were organized in Numeri - because the Numerus was the general term in the Roman world.
    Concerning the number of the Legions' Numeri/Centuriae, it is worth checking the officer called Ducenarius (see above).
    He was, according Vegetius, the commander of 200 soldiers - which was doubtless the main tactical unit - beside the normal centuriae.
    Veg II 8 : item primus hastatus duas centurias (means: made by 2 Centuriae), id est CC (means: or 200) homines ducebat in acie secunda (means: placed in the second line), quem nunc ducenarium vocant.

    _______________________________________________________

    Furthermore -
    The Centenarii were the leaders of the Centuriae
    .
    The Greek translation:
    ekanontarchia = Centuriae
    katontarchos or kentarchos = Centenarius

    This office is evidenced from the 4th century (the inscriptions of Concordia are from 400AD) since the reign of Phokas (Theoph.Simok VIII7,7) - which suggests that a tactical unit called centuriae was valid until the 7th century!

    Ergo: we saw an example of a Legion subdivided by Numeri (gr. katalogoi) - a Legion which previously was subdivided by Maniples (and Centuriae). The Centuriae were not gone, this is shown by the texts from Vegetius and even later by Procopius when he writes that a newly deployed Numerus included 5-6 ekatontarchoi (centenarii).(citation will be added soon)




    Lydus and the Army of the 6th century



    _______________________________________________________

    Ioannes Laurentius Lydus (Greek: Ἰωάννης Λαυρέντιος ὁ Λυδός) or John the Lydian was a 6th century Byzantine administrator and writer on antiquarian subjects. His works are of interest for specific information about classical events.

    He was born in 490 AD at Philadelphia in Lydia, whence his cognomen "Lydus". At an early age he set out to seek his fortune in Constantinople, and held high court and state offices in the praetorian prefecture of the East under Anastasius and Justinian. In 552 he lost favour, and was dismissed. The date of his death is not known, but he was probably alive during the early years of Justin II (reigned 565-578).
    (text wikipedia)

    _______________________________________________________

    The following pages from Ioannes Lydus - written by a man who lived in the sixth century - are another example for the continuation of the typically Roman terms, its military structure and the general wording. I used my books and marked Greek terms in combination with the Latin translations - for a better overview. By the way, the list contains a troop-list of the army.

    _______________________________________________________

    [/SPOILER]

    _______________________________________________________

    This page explains that the Ordines where just officers, to be specific: a special group of officers.
    But I will post next time more detailed explanations.

    _______________________________________________________







    Note

    note: a field army was also composed by other troop-types (beside the Legions) - furthermore new units were existing together with old units as well (which is suggested by the following plates)
    - but to keep the overview and to describe esp. the evolution of the Legion I just used Legions.





    image A

    The numbers of temp. transferred detachments was probably variating between 500 and 1000.





    image B

    Diocletian transferred several detachments of Full assembled legions to his mobile field forces. The parent Legions were probably not filled up with new recruits. Probably (at the beginning of this evolution) it was planned for some reasons that those detachments will return to his mother.
    Furthermore we know that Diocletian deployed several new Full Legions (as well as Cohorts) for the borders. This is suggested by the high number of independent detachments which were sent away from exactly this new Legions (see III Diocletiana).
    In this case I believe that the general army size was indeed increased drastically during his reign.





    image C

    The detachments weren't sent home. Moreover, most of them (if not all) became independent Legions with an own name. Seeck gives a very good list in his supplement of book II of New-Legions - evolved or arised from old Legions.
    Also elaborated by Theodor Mommsen.
    However, even during this time frame we have no sign or evidence that the official size of the Legions was decreased. It is unlikely that the Legions, thinned by transferred Vexillations to the field army, were restocked again. So, in my opinion a common unit size of 2500-3500 men of those legions was probably "normal".
    On the other hand I'm still sure that even now Full-Legions of about ~5500 (or more) were still operating - so long as they were not forced to supply one of the field armies.






    image D

    The time after Adrianople and the necessary wars of Theodosius I. (and the difficult time between those 2 "events") produced a chronic lack of Comitatenses - respectively active units for the mobile field armies.
    During the last 40 years the remaining border legions, now officially known or classified as Limitanei, were thinned more and more.
    But according my researches those Legions were still able to provide numbers between 2500 and 3000 men.
    To fill the slots of the field armies some of those remaining "Full-Legions" were transferred to the field armies - known as Pseudo-Comitatenses. I don't believe that they were transferred to the field army with its complete size as a whole of perhaps 2500-3000. Following my own research I'm sure that those troops (if numbering more than 2000) were probably splitted again by different parts. It is of course somewhat speculative, however, it was also a common roman procedure to deploy units which had at least theoretical a matching unit size - compared to all other units.
    Furthermore we know that even "brand-new" Legions were deployed for the field armies - and even here we should calculate with numbers of 1000 or 1200 - but not more than 1500.

    Ergo: the border defense was automatically thinned out by an alarming low number. Even if the remaining Legions (Limitanei, partially completely settled and not mobile anymore, esp in the West Roman Empire - but also at the Danube-river in the East Roman Empire) were supported by auxillaries, milites, even remaining Cohors, new Numeri etc - it was for sure still too low concerning its number. The problems of the western half between the years 410 and 455 AD are well known.
    But this was just one reason for the decline - as all of us know.




    image E

    Shown is an example of the IIII Parthica. It is evidenced that it was classified as katalogos by Theoph.Simok. II 6,9. That suggests that it was classified as Numerus/Arithmos before - however, the word "Legion" respectively "Legionos" is mentioned in Justinians Novells as well as in the Strategikon.
    Furthmore it is evidenced by Maspero and his egyptian troops list that the term "stratiotes legionos" was synonymous used for "stratiotes arithmou" in other Papyri (compare his list pages 147 and on).





    image F

    Shown is an example of a New-Legion (either a Vexillation of an existing legion or ven a new deployed one







    The End - important information

    Of course it is possible that some units of the mobile field armies were partially or frequently 2000 strong. But according my researches it was probably just an exception - esp. in the case when a Tribune (leader of a New-Legion or Numerus) was also the vicarii of another unit, and in this case 2 units were temporarily combined under the banner of one leader.
    Anyway, even single units of the field army with numbers round about 2000 are doubtless possible - but in my opinion still an exception - and cannot be taken pars pro toto.

    Finally, the shown information are the result of years of researches.
    Sources are normally clearly given. Some sources are missing - but I will add them soon (I have to check the books, no big business).

    If somebody has a problem to follow the string here and there - please don't hesitate to post your question. English is not my mother language and it's of course possible that some statements are difficult to understand or even misleading.




    FAQ - a conclusion

    [1]Legions created after Constantine (so-called New Legions) were 1000-1500 strong and probably same as Cohort Miliaria?

    With the term "New-Legion" I`m just describing the development of a new standard size for Roman troops.
    We have several examples that some detachments got other names and were obviously and permanently disconnected from the parent Legion and became apparently new deployed units - officially still named as Legio.

    And this is the birth of my "New-Legion".
    We see that a Legion with a new name is not necessarily a brand new deployed Legion.

    The term I used in my elaboration was "detachment". A detachment is a "Vexillatio". And in the 3rd century such a Vexiallatio was mostly composed by infantry. Sometimes 500 (1 Cohort), also 1000 (2 Cohorts) strong.
    Later, during the 4th century, many new Vexillations were composed by cavalry as well. The ND is full of examples.

    The deployement of a brand "new" Vexiallation is senseless and a contradiction in term - because there is no parent unit.
    So, just existing units were able to split themself into detachments.
    A simple logic.
    But the question remains now about the name of new units. And in this case we can find indeed several examples.

    We find new deployed - completely independant - Cohors.
    We see during the 4th century that the Numeri became more common. Furthermore a unit called Milites was part of my researches.
    All of them had probably a paper strength of round about 500 (many numbers are possible between 250 and 510).

    If we suggest that the history of the mobile field army has begun with temporarily transferred legionary-vexillations of 500 to 1000 men - then it is very possible (and plausible) that all new deployed units - so long as they were deployed for the mobile field army - had the same size.
    So, if a new Cohors or Numerus was deployed it had for sure a strength of 500.
    If a brand new Legion was deployed FOR the field army then it was probably matching the Vexiallation of a Cohors Miliaria - and this means something between 1000-1200. See also my elaboration about the Tribune.

    Note: it is also possible that such a unit was frequently 2000 strong. In my elaboration regarding the office of the Tribun I have clear evidences that a Tribun was also sometimes a deputy or co-commander of another 2nd unit. Perhaps, and this is possible in theory, 2 Vexillations were temporarily put together. But this is neither a sign, nor an evidence that "New-Legions" were partially 2000 strong.
    But again: all this affects just the central field armies.


    [2]Legions from the Principate (so-called Full Legions of the "ancients" that were located on the frontiers) still maintained their old organization and had nominal strength of 6100?

    Be sure that frontier Legions, later classified as Limitanei (evicenced since 363AD), had the same paper strength IF their border section was not noteworthy reinforced by new units.

    It is unlikely that a huge frontier section with only 2 or 3 Legions was splitted by many Vexiallations without compensations. That would be irresponsible and invite all enemies.
    However, even here the bloodletting was started between the era of Adrianople and Theodosius I. The reasons are well kwown - Theodosius tried to compensate the thinning of the Limitanei with the deployment of many new units - mostly composed by barbarians. In my opinion he had little choice - but the negative aspects are well known as well. But this is another chapter and should not be discussed here.

    Of course, the first mobile field armies were composed mainly by taking Vexillations/detachments from existing border Legions. It was a principle that 90% (or more) of the Legions were garrisoned at the borders. Just Praetorians, Urban Cohorts and some elite Legions like the II Parthica - which were garrisoned in the Hinterland.

    Note:
    Part of the field armies were also formed by other unit formations like the Auxiliae and others - but that`s not part of my research.

    But there is really no sign that Legions were thinned or splitted by a number under their minimum strength. I`m sure that all Legions of the late 3rd until the mid 4th century (in my opinion also beyond) were able to provide a vexiallation of 1000 men - AND still keeping a survivable size of the core-unit with more than 2500-3500 men.

    Perhaps this is the reason why the term "Limitanei" appeared so late in history, much later than the Comitatenses - simply because the distinction or better said the categorization of those Legions was still an "open item".(Limitanei first mentioned in 363AD Theod. XII 1,56 / ripenses first time mentioned in 325AD Theodos. VII 20,4... but I still believe that this term was more valid for units located nearby rivers).
    Or in other words: little changings occured since the 3rd century. That`s also the reason why I have no doubt concerning the descriptions of Vegetius. Sometimes the answers are more easy than expected.

    ! Furthermore: the term "frontier forces" can just occur if a "field-army" gets a noteworthy size - comparable with each other.
    All Legions were garrisoned at the borders since Octavian Caesar. Insofar no noteworthy change occured. That a Legion was garrisoned at the border was no indication for a weakening or a reduction of its status for centuries. Therefore I could imagine that there was also no need to develope a new name for something which was existing since several hundered years.
    It was the establishement of a new mobile army with a noteworthy size which resulted in the creation of 2 groups, namely that of Limitanei and Comitatenses. !


    [3]Some units in the mobile field armies were actually regiments detached from Old Legions and they served as a model for the future New Legions?

    They formed the bulk of the new field armies - beside some other formations like Auxiliae, independant Cohors etc.
    New Numeri, Auxiliae, Milites, Cohors had the size of round about 300-500. Legionary-Vexiallations of 300-500, or they followed the old system of the Cohors Miliaria of 1000-1200 men - a system which evolved in the "New-Legions".



    [4]New Legions were not divided into cohorts but instead they were divided into centuriae (commanded by centenarius) and UNKNOWN UNITS OF 200 MEN (commanded by ducenarius). This implies there were TWO MAIN TACTICAL BODIES (one of 100 men and the other of 200 men)?

    We should also keep in mind that the old hyginic-Legion was not a tactical unit. It was an administrative body of partically 10000 men! (incl. handcraftsmen, logistics, staff, cooks etc)
    The tactical unit was the Cohort within a Legion.

    I personally doubt that a Vexiallation, even if temporarily deployed (or disconnected from its mother), was still organized in Cohors.
    Even a 3rd century Vexillatio was probably not sub-divided by Cohorts.

    Of course they kept their internal organization. But I don`t see the purpose to keep the Cohortal system if a unit was just 1000 or 1200 or even 1500 strong.
    Even the old Centurion is gone. He was replaced by the Centenarius.
    Also interesting: The old Centurion of the Cohort was responsible to sign the vacation-papers of the soldiers respectively he decided about the availablity of vacations. During our discussed time this job was completely shifted to the Tribun - the leader of the complete Vexillation.
    For me another sign that the Cohortal system was probably gone within the "New-Legion".
    The office of the Centenarius is evidenced (he commanded 100 men). The ducenarius - even if rarely mentioned - is evidenced as well (commanding 200 men).
    Depending on the size of the main-unit there were probably 2 different tactical unit.
    The term Manipulus was used to describe the "tent-community" (contubernia or gr.=lochos). The Manipular system was gone, and the word Manipulus was used for another issue.

    It is also interesting and therefore worth checking Vegetius:
    Veg II 8 - probably the commander of 2 centuries or 200 soldiers was a ducenarius.
    But even if it`s true that a ducenarius was occasionally commanding 2 centuries than it wasn`t a Maniple (new-maniple = contubernia = tent community).





    Credits and Sources

    Research and responsible for the content of all texts: Pompeius Magnus

    Base of my researches and given inputs by Theodor Mommsen, Otto Seeck and Robert Grosse. Meanwhile added dozens of new researches (based on new found inscriptions and a re-interpretation of the Notitia Digniatum - furthermore by including texts of the Strategikon) and conclusions by myself.
    Many thanks to our friend and team-member of AoD2 Senior Batavian Horse for his cross-check, text improvements and text corrections.
    The shown unit of the IIII Parthica was reconstructed and made by Empio.

    Best regards
    PM+Team
    Last edited by Pompeius Magnus; May 18, 2013 at 02:43 PM.

  2. #2
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: [Historiae] the evolvement of the Legion 4th 5th and 6th century

    content moved to post #1
    Last edited by Pompeius Magnus; October 05, 2010 at 11:00 AM.

  3. #3
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: [Historiae] the evolvement of the Legion 4th 5th and 6th century

    content moved to post #1
    Last edited by Pompeius Magnus; October 05, 2010 at 11:19 AM.

  4. #4
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: [Historiae] the evolution of the Legion (4th 5th and 6th century)

    content moved to post #1
    Last edited by Pompeius Magnus; October 05, 2010 at 11:29 AM.

  5. #5
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: [Historiae] the evolution of the Legion (4th 5th and 6th century)

    content moved to post #1
    Last edited by Pompeius Magnus; October 05, 2010 at 11:51 AM.

  6. #6
    Magister Militum Flavius Aetius's Avatar δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC
    Posts
    16,318
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: [Historiae] the evolution of the Legion (4th 5th and 6th century)

    Wow! Great post(s) I already repped you on this one in UR though. Where did you get this info from? The strategikon?

  7. #7
    jermagon's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Cairo,Egypt
    Posts
    2,189

    Default Re: [Historiae] the evolution of the Legion (4th 5th and 6th century)

    Pomps you're a true Roman, your knowledge with early medieval Greek really amazes me


    George Galloway ''You don't give a damn !!!!!!!!''







  8. #8
    AnthoniusII's Avatar Μέγαc Δομέστικοc
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    19,045

    Default Re: [Historiae] the evolution of the Legion (4th 5th and 6th century)

    Bravo !
    TGC in order to continue its development seak one or more desicated scripters to put our campaign scripts mess to an order plus to create new events and create the finall missing factions recruitment system. In return TGC will give permision to those that will help to use its material stepe by step. The result will be a fully released TGC plus many mods that will benefit TGC's material.
    Despite the mod is dead does not mean that anyone can use its material
    read this to avoid misunderstandings.

    IWTE tool master and world txt one like this, needed inorder to release TGC 1.0 official to help TWC to survive.
    Adding MARKA HORSES in your mod and create new varietions of them. Tutorial RESTORED.


  9. #9
    SeniorBatavianHorse's Avatar Tribunus Vacans
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Posts
    5,160

    Default Re: [Historiae] the evolution of the Legion (4th 5th and 6th century)

    Excellent post and very detailed - + rep for al your hard work and research here. This is exactly why I am addicted to this mod!

  10. #10
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: [Historiae] the evolution of the Legion (4th 5th and 6th century)

    content moved to post #1
    Last edited by Pompeius Magnus; October 05, 2010 at 11:59 AM.

  11. #11
    MorganH.'s Avatar Finis adest rerum
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    4,659

    Default Re: [Historiae] the evolution of the Legion (4th 5th and 6th century)

    Amazing Info,very interesting +rep

    regards

  12. #12
    elendir's Avatar Libertus
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    80

    Default Re: [Historiae] the evolution of the Legion (4th 5th and 6th century)

    Excellent, as usual. Thanks for your work

  13. #13
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: [Historiae] the evolution of the Legion (4th 5th and 6th century)

    +rep for your positive comments - all of you!
    If any question is left we can of course always discuss here in our thread.

  14. #14
    Magister Militum Flavius Aetius's Avatar δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC
    Posts
    16,318
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: [Historiae] the evolution of the Legion (4th 5th and 6th century)

    This is Great, Although I don't speak greek. Hmm... I could use my friend's English to Greek Translation Dictionary...

  15. #15
    AnthoniusII's Avatar Μέγαc Δομέστικοc
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    19,045

    Default Re: [Historiae] the evolution of the Legion (4th 5th and 6th century)

    I can quaranty that the greek translations are corect.
    PM knows that i would post a corection if i would think that something could be wrong. But he did not make mistakes ...
    EDIT: These "greek" texts are medieval form ones. A modern greek translation dictionary would not help much.
    TGC in order to continue its development seak one or more desicated scripters to put our campaign scripts mess to an order plus to create new events and create the finall missing factions recruitment system. In return TGC will give permision to those that will help to use its material stepe by step. The result will be a fully released TGC plus many mods that will benefit TGC's material.
    Despite the mod is dead does not mean that anyone can use its material
    read this to avoid misunderstandings.

    IWTE tool master and world txt one like this, needed inorder to release TGC 1.0 official to help TWC to survive.
    Adding MARKA HORSES in your mod and create new varietions of them. Tutorial RESTORED.


  16. #16

    Default Re: [Historiae] the evolution of the Legion (4th 5th and 6th century)

    Your attention to detail is very commendable, P.Magnus, it makes me look forward to the mod all the more.

  17. #17
    Magister Militum Flavius Aetius's Avatar δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC
    Posts
    16,318
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: [Historiae] the evolution of the Legion (4th 5th and 6th century)

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    I can quaranty that the greek translations are corect.
    PM knows that i would post a corection if i would think that something could be wrong. But he did not make mistakes ...
    EDIT: These "greek" texts are medieval form ones. A modern greek translation dictionary would not help much.
    Ha! yeah that's true...

  18. #18

    Default Re: [Historiae] the evolution of the Legion (4th 5th and 6th century)

    Pomp, great work I think you should catalog these with contentboxes in the OP for easy reference.

  19. #19
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: [Historiae] the evolution of the Legion (4th 5th and 6th century)

    You are right of course.
    I should improve certain things concerning the overview.

  20. #20
    juvenus's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Belgrade, Serbia
    Posts
    1,526

    Default Re: [Historiae] the evolution of the Legion (4th 5th and 6th century)

    what an epic thread! just finished reading through....+rep


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •