Roman question

[AspisPhalanx90]

I was playing IBFD:RR, and after playing some campaigning i decided to do a custom battle. Problem was, are there no first cohorts? There seemed to be around 3 or 4 different Legio Comitatenses, auxilia cohors, and such...but no prima cohorts (as it was in Rio's)

I was just wondering if there was a reason for this, whether it be historical or whatever. Ive actually modded my game a bit to include the "command" attribute for the EDU first cohort, and added the RSII aquilia officer

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

No, there is no Prime Cohort in this time frame. I am not familiar with Rio's mod so do not know how he has set up the structure of the Late Roman Legions - basically, your main front line legions in this period were smaller than the Principate period. The latter were between 5,000 and 6,000 in terms of paper strength whereas the later field army legions from say Constantine onwards were around a 1,000 to 1,200 in terms of paper strength. These new legions were sub-divided into 5-6 maniples of around 200 apprx.

Cohorts existed still under the old legions which were now relegated to border static defense and down-graded in terms of pay and status. As a result, I would expect any old first cohort to have long ago been brigaged off as a separate unit or vexillation and now to be ensconced in a fort somewhere as its own independent unit.

Check here for a more detailed breakdown I wrote a while back. Please note that I used the term 'ordo' to designate the 200 man sub-unit in a legion but that now I believe the term 'manipulus' to be the accurate one!

[wulfgar610]

These new legions were sub-divided into 5-6 maniples of around 200 apprx.

They still maniples then? I thought Marian showed them the back door?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

They still maniples then? I thought Marian showed them the back door?

It's probably just a name.

I know you're most likely aware of this, but still: it's just "a handful" in latin.

[wulfgar610]

It's probably just a name.

I know you're most likely aware of this, but still: it's just "a handful" in latin.

The only historical documents have 5 centuries per cohort in the late 4th century. I suspect the maniple of the classical era was long gone and forgotten.

[juvenus]

The only historical documents have 5 centuries per cohort in the late 4th century. I suspect the maniple of the classical era was long gone and forgotten.

actually, it's not that simple. Pompeus Magnus explained it in details some time ago...

[AspisPhalanx90]

No, there is no Prime Cohort in this time frame. I am not familiar with Rio's mod so do not know how he has set up the structure of the Late Roman Legions - basically, your main front line legions in this period were smaller than the Principate period. The latter were between 5,000 and 6,000 in terms of paper strength whereas the later field army legions from say Constantine onwards were around a 1,000 to 1,200 in terms of paper strength. These new legions were sub-divided into 5-6 maniples of around 200 apprx.

Cohorts existed still under the old legions which were now relegated to border static defense and down-graded in terms of pay and status. As a result, I would expect any old first cohort to have long ago been brigaged off as a separate unit or vexillation and now to be ensconced in a fort somewhere as its own independent unit.

Check here for a more detailed breakdown I wrote a while back. Please not that I used the term 'ordo' to designate the 200 man sub-unit in a legion but that now I believe the term 'manipulus' to be the accurate one!

That is a phenomenal breakdown. I had no idea how the late roman army was composed, so ive been trying to form up into the standard 10 cohort legion...which i learned in IBFD costs excessive amounts, and forever to train...which as ive now read, the legions were much smaller so you wouldnt have a 10 cohors legion with supporting arms anymore

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

No, a single legion is easily built in the various IB mods: on Huge settings you would have on average 4 heavy infantry units (representing 1 manipulus of 2 centuries each), 1 unit of archers and 1 unit of light infantry - so 6 units make a late legion. A lot of evidence suggests that late Roman legions were brigaded into pairs so a 20 army stack of field army troops would therefore have 12 of those spaces given over to 2 full legions (6 unit cards per legion). Simples!

These would be supported by cavalry vexillations (3 unit cards per vexillation) and federate auxiliaries.

Note also that the late Roman legion existed in one of 3 grades: elite 'palatine' legions (troops under the direct command of the Emperor), field army legions (troops stationed internally as a mobile field army and able to move rapidly to deal with incoming invasions) and the border legions (old style legions now long-since fort-based static troops) known as limitanei or troops at the 'limit'. These last indeed might still have old style cohorts and even old style ranks such a centurion but were not expected to march into battle and hold the line as the field army and palatine legions were.

Hope that helps!

[AspisPhalanx90]

thats extremely helpful, now i finally can understand! so itd be four Comitateneses for the "legionary" aspect of the legion, with the various support elements, and a full stack would include two legions....very helpful!

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Yes, something like that! 4 comitatenses with 1 also of exculcatores or light infantry and I also of sagittarii or archers makes you 1 full line legion. If I have time later (doubtful to honest!) I will post up some pics of stack compositions to illustrate various possibilities.

I should also point out that some of our knowledge of the period is incomplete so on the whole this is more informed guesswork than absolute fact! Glad you are enjoying this period, by the way!

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

I could.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Oh god, is 'ordines' making a comeback?

[Renatus]

Oh god, is 'ordines' making a comeback?

Don't worry. The word in the Greek is tagmatohn, so it seems that we can forget about ordines and cohorts so far as Iust. Nov. 149 is concerned. The moral is, Don't rely on translations. They are valuable guides but, in matters of detail, there is no substitute for the original. VV has repeatedly advocated going back to the original texts and I agree with him wholeheartedly.

[Valentinian Victor]

Don't worry. The word in the Greek is tagmatohn, so it seems that we can forget about ordines and cohorts so far as Iust. Nov. 149 is concerned. The moral is, Don't rely on translations. They are valuable guides but, in matters of detail, there is no substitute for the original. VV has repeatedly advocated going back to the original texts and I agree with him wholeheartedly.

And I agree totally with Renatus, as the thread on the 'Ballistarii' showed where various translators call them 'archers' in the English translation. I find your point very interesting Renatus, and also very good advice for those who are interested in the area of the Later Roman Empire. It's interesting how translators try and match Greek words into the Latin and English. Whilst words such as 'hopilatoi' we can take to mean legionaries, and 'Psiloi' as velites, its difficult to know how to translate the terms such as 'Banda' or 'tagma' (Cohort? Legion?) unless, as in the case of Julian, you know exactly what units he is referring to.

[Renatus]

It's interesting how translators try and match Greek words into the Latin and English. Whilst words such as 'hopilatoi' we can take to mean legionaries, and 'Psiloi' as velites, its difficult to know how to translate the terms such as 'Banda' or 'tagma' (Cohort? Legion?) unless, as in the case of Julian, you know exactly what units he is referring to.

Have you seen Hugh J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: A Lexicon and Analysis (American Studies in Papyrology XIII), Toronto: Hakkert, 1974? As a member of the Roman Society, you could study the copy in the Joint Library. There is a review of it by Michael Crawford in JRS 67 (1977), 249-250.

[Valentinian Victor]

Have you seen Hugh J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: A Lexicon and Analysis (American Studies in Papyrology XIII), Toronto: Hakkert, 1974? As a member of the Roman Society, you could study the copy in the Joint Library. There is a review of it by Michael Crawford in JRS 67 (1977), 249-250.

I've heard of that work, however, reading the copy in the library might be difficult as I generally only get to London two to three times a year, and always on a Sunday. Oddly, although I requested it, I do not have access to backdated JRS journals, I'm going to have to contact them about this again.

[Pompeius Magnus]

not really

@Aetius
give me a day and I will collect some infos for you

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

I am just a writer - I bow to the academics every time!

[Pompeius Magnus]

As long as some Legions were not divided by different detachments (and sent to different regions of the empire) - they still had (probably) a certain size far more than the mentioned 1200 men. So, without making an in-depth research I would agree to VV that numbers between 4000 and 5000 are possible. Concerning the paper-strength even 5000 to 6000.
But I'm still collecting some material and infos.

It seems that the "legionary" cavalry, which was disconnected from the legions (resulted in Promoti) was temporarily attached again to it during the time of Diocletian - at least for some elite units. This resulted again in an increase of the Legions' size by the end of the 3rd century - or better said: for some Legions the original unit size of previous times was reached again.
However,after or during the reign of Constantin the great the cavalry was probably disconnected again. This is not an indication for numbers but it shows the dynamic of the Legions' structure in general. Exciting chapter. But as said, I'm still researching.

[juvenus]

we'll be the most elated to hear any news from your research PM