To Ordo or not to Ordo

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

It's official: I have been using the term 'ordo' and 'ordine' as a descriptor for the late Roman infantry unit originally designated as a Maniple and later called a Numerus.

I used it after Phil Barker's detailed outline of the late Roman army published back in the mid-eighties and which on the whole still stands the test of time HOWEVER after consultation with PM here and thanks to his exhaustive research I will now no longer use the term as it seems a mistake on Barker's part.

My understanding is that Barker has taken a reference to Tribunes of the Line (ordo?) and turned that phrase into referencing a unit descriptor. There is no other reference for the term - I even posted over in RAT, none of whom could validate the term 'ordo'.

So: all those AARS I wrote using the 'ordo' term are inaccurate now! I think on balance, as VV posted a while ago in another thread, 'maniple' should remain a unit descriptor for the nominal 200 unit of 2 centuries - until other evidence come along, I think!

[Joar]

I see no other solution for you than to fall on your sword.

[Juvenal]

Rats! I sure am going to have to edit a lot of posts now...

EDIT: It seems then that I should use the term maniple when writing about my IBFD infantry units, with a sprinkling of cohort for long-established organisations. Is Numerus suitable for 410AD, or did that come later?

[Valentinian Victor]

Rats! I sure am going to have to edit a lot of posts now...

EDIT: It seems then that I should use the term maniple when writing about my IBFD infantry units, with a sprinkling of cohort for long-established organisations. Is Numerus suitable for 410AD, or did that come later?

I have been saying for years that it is valid to use the terms 'Maniple', Centuries', 'Cohort', 'Cuneus', 'Numerus' etc as those terms are used in many Late Roman documents/histories. Like many others I had the terms 'ordo' and 'vexillitation' thrown down my throat and was told bluntly on a number of occasions that using terms such as 'cohort' was 'classising'. However, since the discovery of a number of Late Roman papyrii detailing pay for troops in units called 'cohorts', 'numerus' etc I believe there is now more acceptance that the old terms for units were still in use.

Juvenal, I think you can safely use 'numerus' before 410AD as it appears in the Notitia and other documents written pre-410AD.

[Pompeius Magnus]

Yes, for IB:IJ the term Manipulus should be used to describe the main tactical unit - independently from its real strength.

For all other versions, respectively IB:RR and esp. for IB:FD the term Numerus should be used.

[juvenus]

Yes, for IB:IJ the term Manipulus should be used to describe the main tactical unit - independently from its real strength.

For all other versions, respectively IB:RR and esp. for IB:FD the term Numerus should be used.

i'm a bit confused...i understand there was a type of unit called numerii they were, like semi-regular troops (barbarians recruited in the border areas to scout and patrol). there's even a academic study called "Numerii in the roman army" and it clearly describe those barbarians operating in the border regions.
are you saying that there were both numerUS and numerII and those two were different things?

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

k, thanks

[Pompeius Magnus]

Numerus is singular and Numeri is plural. If you have a single unit in a game like IBRR it should be called Numerus and not Numeri - because it's one unit - the same for a unit called Legio or Cohors. It's always singular.

And the developement and evolvement of the Numerus as main tactical unit of the empire is described here:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=353621

The word Numeri (or singular Numerus) is of course coming from the barbarian and semi-roman units called Numeri.
Esp. during the reign of Theodosius many many barbarian auxilaries (aux.forces, helping hands!, mercs!) were attached to the roman army. And those new units were mostly classified as Numeri.

Within few years it was obviously nonstandard or colloquial to name all Roman units Numeri (means: a number) - even if the superordinate terms for divisions were still in use (e.g. Cohors, Legio, Vexillatio).
Again few years later - and this is evidenced due to the edictum Anastasii at the end of the 5th century - all units were called like this in a general meaning. It was obviously a smooth transition and not re-named ad-hoc. In this case it is not sure how long the main tactical unit was called Manipulus. But it was for sure the case during the reign of Julian and on, this is described at least 50 times by Vegetius.

For adding new names it is imo not necessary to include the Marian reform - simply because the character of the units didn't changed.
That's the reason why I said that the single tactical unit in IB:IJ should be called Manipulus. But all later mods like IB:RR and esp. IB:FD can use the new term Numerus.

[juvenus]

Thanks a lot. just one thing, to avoid confusion:

Esp. during the reign of Theodosius many many barbarian auxilaries (aux.forces, helping hands!, mercs!) were attached to the roman army. And those new units were mostly classified as Numeri.

you mean Theodosius I (379-395) right? if he recruited a lot of those numeri in that case it perfectly makes sense to call the main tactical unit as Numerus in the period after him.

[Juvenal]

How about cavalry (especially around the time of Honorius), are they Vexillations or Numeri, or something else entirely?

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

How about cavalry (especially around the time of Honorius), are they Vexillations or Numeri, or something else entirely?

Vexillations, I think. But that only applies to the descriptor for a single unit. Each cavalry vexillation would have 3 squadrons of around 100 paper-strength troopers in it. Barker assigns the 'ordo' as the descriptor for this 100-man unit (sub-divided into 2 50-man centuriae) so again I think we have to lose the 'ordo' element. Vexillation stands as does the century but as for the manipulus equivalent - I am not familiar enough with Roman cavalry terms yet to hazard a guess!

And yes a lot of re-writing of old AARs or else as Joar above comments I fall on my not so mighty sword!

[Pompeius Magnus]

@Juvenus
Exactly. Theodosius I
To compensate the high losses after Adrianople, and also other events, he re-organized a lot. Of course it was necessary - however, he was critizized many times (also by ancient authors) due to the annexation of so many barbarian and foreign elements into the army.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

probably alae for cavalry and decurii