[Historiae] about late roman tactical units
the era of "the ancients"
The base of my elaboration was taken from the inputs of Sir William Smith. But generally there is little to add.
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.
the time of the Notitia Dignitatum
The Notitia lists 105 Cohorts.
Its ranking is still the old one and listed behind the Legions, partially behind the Alae as well.
It is characteristical that they are not listed in the mobile field armies - whereas the Auxiliae are part of those mobile field armies.
The new military order outflanked this old tactical unit and now we are also able to explain why we can't find any Cohorts nearby or
directly located in the Ducates of the Danube area. They were replaced by Auxillaries in those areas.
Prestige and reputation of illyrian militas increased drastically during the 3rd century - they were transferred or classified
as Auxiliae - therefore they were placed (concerning the ranking) prior to the Cohorts - and even prior to the frontier/border Legions.
We can specualte that those Cohorts were mainly formed by Romans only. Even if we find some Alamani, Franks, Goths and some more foreign elements there (within Cohorts), but the typically gallo-germanic character is missing (compared to the auxillaries).
At least one Cohort was founded by Aurelian
I. Aureliana
At least 15 Cohorts were established by Diocletian:
III. Valeria Bracaraugustanorum
III. Valeria Marmantarum
V. Valeria Frygum
VI. Valeria Raetorum
XII. Valeria
XIV. Valeria Zabdenorum
I. Iovia
I. Herculia Raetorum
III. Herculia Pannoniorum
III. Herculia
I. Flavia
I. Sapaudica
II. Flavia Pacatiana
II. Aegyptiorum, valle Diocletiana ? (Or. XXXII 43)
4 were established after Diocletian
II. Gratiana
I. Theodosiana
I. felix Theodosiana
XI. Chamavorum (probably deployed by Julian / Or. XXXI 61)
Cohorts with the term "Flavia" were problay deployed after the reign of Diocletian by Constantine or his sons. But the multiplication of
border defenses was basically made during the reign of Diocletian - at least this is believed by many historians (e.g. Seeck or Grosse).
Some Cohorts, deployed by barbarians or non-romans in general, were created during the reign of Aurelian (or even much later).
Before Aurelian it was a common procedure that mostly Romans were serving in those typically roman units.
IX. Tzanorum
IV. Iuthungorum
V. pacata Alamannorum
IX. Alamannorum
VII. Francorum
XI. Chamavorum
I. Gothorum
Those Cohors, garrinsoned in the east - were presuambly deployed during the time era of Aurelian - as mentioned above. However, for the gothic Cohort we can also speculate that Theodosius I. was its farther.
Most of the other Cohorts, mentioned in the ND, survived from the older times.
III. Alpinorum
I. Apamenorum 241AD
Apuleia 241AD
I. Asturum 245AD
I. Baetasiorum 249AD
I. Batavorum 251AD
nona (instead of nova) Batavorum 253AD
miliaria Bosporiana 255AD
III. Britannorum 261AD
Celtibera 268AD
I. Aelia classica 272AD
I. Claudia equitata 273AD
I. Cornoviorum 275AD
II. Cretensis 276AD
compare index of ND page 313 and on with the list of pre-diocletianic Cohorts of Cichorius, as described by Pauly-Wissowa IV page 237 and on.
The Cohort was commanded by a Tribune or Praepositus.
During the pre-diocletianic time there were 4 different kind of Cohorts.
Either they were 500 or 1000 strong. Formed by infantry only (cohors quingenaria) or mixed mith cavalry (miliaria equitata).
In the post-Constantinic time it is unlikely that many of those mixed units were still existing - simply because Constantine has separated them strictly (infantry and cavalry).
Of course it is possible that very few of those mixed units still survived for some reasons.
We known of a Cohors I Claudia Equitata (Or. XXXIV 43 or XXXVIII 36). Maybe it's a kind of "exception" or simply an old term which survived until the 4th century.
On the other hand Ammianus is sometimes speaking about a Cohors Equestris
AMM XIV 2,12 XXIV 5,8 and 10
... but it is possible that he meant any kind of cavalry troop.
Just take his (Ammianus) example of of a "equites quartae sagittariorum cohortis" (XXIX 5,20) ... this unit is probably identically with the "vexillatio comitatensis quarto sagittarii (compare ND Occ. VI. 72). In this case we see that Ammianus is sometimes mixing unit types.
In one of my older elaborations i have shown that he even mixed Auxiliae and Legions as well.
The strength of a Cohors is given of round about 300 men by Lydus (de mag I 46). But Lydus is partially not the most reliable source for the 4th and early 5th century, however, we can guess that the number of 500 was still valid for the 4th and even 5th century - at least regarding the paper-strength. Like the Numerus (gr. Arithmos) many numbers are possible between 300, 320 (see Strategikon), up to 508 men.
So, for the 4th and 5th century we have to calculate with numbers between 400 and 500. For the late 5th and 6th century a number of 300 to 400 seems realistic. (compare with Numerus)
Just 4 Cohorts are mentioned with an additional term "miliaria" which suggests a number of round about 1000 men.
Bosporiana
Germanorum
III. Ulpia Petraeorum
I. Thracum
...even here we can ask the question if those terms were just names - taken from older times. But this is pure speculation from my side.
The last destiny of roman city cohorts
- praetoriae -
disbanded by Constantine
- urbanae -
survived until the end of the 4th century
Symmach. relat. XXXXII (page 314) ; mentioned for the years 384 or 385 ; furthermore mentioned in an inscription CIL VI. 1156 from the years 317-337.
The Urban Cohorts are not mentioned anymore in the ND, which suggests that they were definitively gone at the beginning of the 5th century.
- vigilum -
...still mentioned in the ND Occ. IV 4
Moving to the late 5th Century, one can find the office of the ekatontarchos or kentarchos – the equivalent to the centenarius.
This suggests a nominal strength of 100 men. Technically, this unit was called ekanontarchiai – or centuriae. Assuming it really was 100 strong, or just 80 or even perhaps 120 is another question and not relevant for the moment.
One thing is more important: it clearly states that the Numerus was indeed subdivided by Centuriae – even in the time of Procopius. For the Procopian period, as it were, it is known that nearly all new deployed units and all former Legions and Auxilia Palatinae were called or organised in Numeri/Arithmoi.
The edictum anastasii (+/-491AD) suggests that a Numerus was 200 strong. Ok so far. But this is probably just a confirmation of the reality. This unit-size of 200 wasn't desired by the commanders - it was however a fact.
Another interesting note: Vegetius say that the standard - the signum - was given to the Centuriae by the ancients. The signum moved from the manipulus to the Centuriae – and this indirectly is evidence that the maniple is no more.
On the follwing schematic you can follow the development of the Legion. Also the Auxilia palatinae (like the Regii) are classified by Procopius as Numeri (numerus reges). This development is valid (with other numbers) for Legions and Auxiliae.
I took the IIII Parthica as an example because it's one of the last mentioned Legions in Beroa.
_______________________________________________________
Justinian gave the order to deploy a new Numerus (Noumiron Iustinianon) in Hermupolis (+/-530AD) and this unit was 508 strong. The 5000 cavalry of the expedition-army in north africa were led by 13 commanders which makes in result 385 men per unit. The officer Kyrillos had a troop of "regulars" in North Africa which was 400 strong.
Procop. BV I 14,1
The uniformly unit of the 6th century (at least all new deployed units), infantry as well as cavalry, was called Numerus (gr. Arithmos, katalogos, tagma).
The technical and conventional name was Arithmos.
Katalogos can be found in Novelle C II 2 C III 3, furthermore "Telos" which is rarely used by Procopius BG I 23,3.
Agathias is using the term Tagma, but he is rotating sometimes the words and used Taxis as well.
Its commander was a tribunus or praepositus.
About its real strength, which varies between 250 and 508, I have given more than enough sources in the Thread about the evolution of the Legion.
But obviously there was not really a noteworthy difference between the 4th and 6th century concerning the basic strength of units.
Beside the fact that a bandon was just a banner and not a unit - at least in the 5th and early-mid 6th century, (gr.: semeion) we see in the novels that all greek terms (Tagma, Katalogoi, Arithmoi etc.) were translated in latin as Numerus. A Bandon, in the meaning of a unit serving under a banner is, according my knowledge, firstly mentioned in the Strategikon of Maurice.
One of the Munich Papyri (page 22) shows that the term stratiotes legionos is synonymical used with with stratiotes arithmou. But this is probably just the case for remaining parts of "real" Legions.
In the early 7th century the IIII Parthica was organised as katalogos. Other new deployed units like the Iustiniani in egypt were called arithmos noumidon ioustinianon.
It is also worth to check the Strategikon to get a better overview about the army of the end of the 6th and 7th century.
book 1 introduction
chapter 2 the various titles of the officers and the soldiers
(...)First, the head and leader of the whole army is called the general (or Strategos), the man who ranks second after him is the lieutenant general (hypo-strategos).
The merarch is the one entrusted with the command of a meros; the moirarch is the one entrusted with the commander of a moira and is called a duke (Doux).
A meros or division is an assemblage or grouping composed of three moiras. A moira is madfe up of tagmatas, arithmoi or bandons.
Illiarch is the term for the first of the (h)ekatontarchs, who is second in command to the count (komes) or tribune (tribunos).
A (h)ekatontarch commands a hundered men (...)
[1] Tagma implies a group drawn up in order or in formation. So, it is basically a term used for the battlefield.
[2] Arithmos (latin Numerus) means a number of soldiers.
[3] Bandon is the word for a banner, extended to designate the unit serving under that flag.
If you start reading the Strategikon you get in the first chapter (about officers and units) the impression that all those terms (like Arithmos, Bandon etc.) are exchangable.
However, if you continue reading the books about infantry and cavalry you can clearly observe that the bandon was used to designate cavalry, and the arithmos was used to describe infantry. As a nominal strength it is also advised that a troop should never have less than 200 men and never more than 400.
In the Strategikon you find several battle field orders - suggesting the number of 310 as "normal".
If a unit was smaller than 200, then the Strategikon explains that those soldiers should be shared or transfered to other units. But it was not allowed to them to fight under their own original banner.
The Numerus was, acc. Procopius, partitioned or sub-divided in "Lochoi".
BG IV 35,18
Because the office of the ekatontarchos or kentarchos = centenarius was still existing in the 6th century we may suggest that such a sub-unit was probably 100 strong and it was technically called ekatontarchiai = centuriae.
(Lochoi = contubernium?)
In place of the old Centurio we find acc. Vegetius the "centenarius".
Veg II 8 centuriones...qui nunc centenarii nominatur
He was the commander of a unit which was actually 100 strong - this is confirmed several times in the Strategikon (source text see above)
However, it is almost excluded that the new centenarius played the same role like the old centurion. Otherise we would read anything of him in the books of Ammianus or Procopius - which is not the case at all.
He was probably something like what is called today a sergeant or staff sergeant (in german Unteroffizier or Feldwebel).
The Centenarius is evidenced within
-the Scholae
Nov Theodos. 21 = Codex Iustin. XII 29,1 (I 31,3) from the year 441AD.
-the infantry
Codex Iust. I 27,2
-the cavalry
CIL III 14406a Aurelius Saxa centenarius...militavi inter equites catafractos Pictavensis
CIL V 8758 Flavius Roveos centenarius de equitum comitis seniores sagitarii Concordia
arsionitic Papyrus (Wien Stud XXIV page 131, 133 + 136) kentenario arithmo aiotaton klibanarion
Lydus called him (the kentarchos) several times
de mag I 48 III 2.7.21
Also interesting Codex Iust. I 27, 2:
about the officia of the duces in africa and sardinia.
6 centenarii are mentioned (2 1/2 annonae 1 capitum) and 4 ducenarii as well (3 1/2 annonae 1 1/2 capitum).
The earliest mentioned centenarius is described in the 4th century (the upper mentioned inscriptions of Concordia are from (round about) 400A.D.). But even in the early byzantine periode it was still a valid office. The Usurper Phokas (602A.D) was an ekatontarchos or kentarchos before.
Theoph. Simok. VIII 7,7
I found another intersting text part about 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".
contubernium autem manipulus vacabantur ab eo, quod coniunctis manibus pariter dimicabant.
Regarding the following plate:
case A
edictum anastasii page 138 §7 and page 151
it explains the career of the deceprimi within a Numerus -
which was basically a stage between the eldest veterans and regulars. It says that 10 men - respectively 5 % of the troup should have this title. This suggests that we can calculate with 200 men. This regulation occurs the first time since the reign of Diocletian. However, I personally think that it was probably a nominal value and numbers beyond 200 are possible as well.
case B
the Numerus Iustinianon in Hermopolis is just one example of a Numerus which was 500 strong. In a older elaboration I gave many numbers between 250, 385 and more. But the Numeri in egypt, carefully listed by Maspero, are suggesting that a paper-strength of round about 500 was always focused.
case C
clearly explained in the Startegikon, sources were given in one of my previous posts.
The Arithmoi (inf) or Bandiloi (cav) formed the Tagma on the battle field.
...coming soon:
Auxilium
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by lordyu
