Roman Legion Questions

[DesertFox]

Roman Legion Questions

 

First, when would the Roman Legions be considered at their height

Second, what would be their number and how would they be organized

Third, what was the Roman Empire population which supported these troops

 

Next, what would be the common weapons and armor (and other equipment) carried by these legions.

 

Finally, what likely the most complex question is what is the composition of the troops

As in, where do the troops come from - City of Rome, Italian Peninsula, Gaul, Africa, Asia, etc.

How many would be "foreigners" and come from Germanic Tribes.

How as these troops "slotted in"? Are troops basically just put in where needed or are they kept in units from like regions such as all Gaul troops in one unit?

Edited June 8, 2008 by DesertFox

[Degenerate]

1) Early Imperial period. By this time there was a standing army of about 30 legions maintained (more could be raised when needed) and these legions were likely the largest (up to over 5000 men) Also there are large numbers of auxilliary troops supplementing the legions.

 

2) 5000 or so men organised into 10 cohorts with the first cohort being roughly double the strength of the rest. Each cohort is split into 6 centuries each led by a centurion assisted by an optio. The centurion of the first century of each cohort was the leader of that cohort as well as his own century. The legion is commanded by a Legate (political appointee) assisted by various tribunes (junior politicians). Second in command of a legion was the Prefect, a soldier of huge experience who would have once served as 1st centurion of the first cohort and stayed on after his 25 year term of service. Socially junior to the tribunes he still commands the legion if the Legate is indisposed. Additionally each legion had a small force (around 100) of cavalry for scouting)

 

3) Ballpark figure between 50 and 100 million? Hard to pin down as the empire changed in size frequently.

 

4) Depends on the period but earlier legions wore chainmail armour and later the familiar "lorica segmenta" armour. Large shield. Short sword (gladius). Javelins for longer distance killing power (soft metal heads that bent on impact so they couldnt be chucked back). All troops also carried entrenching tools as they were expected to construct a marching camp every night when on the move. Legions would also have an assortment of siege weaponry and artillery type weapons at their disposal and were well capable of constructing these toys in the field.

 

5) Yes thats a bit complex. Only those with Roman citizenship could serve in the legions. Anyone could be in the auxilliary units and citizenship would be granted them at the end of their service. I can tell you that units (legion or auxilliary) were not allowed to serve in their home regions. Hence there is evidence of units from the middle east serving garrison duty in the British Isles and so on.

Edited June 8, 2008 by Degenerate

[67th Tigers]

Second, what would be their number and how would they be organized

 

The rank structure of the Legion:

 

A century consists of 8 Contubernium (Squads) of 9 Legionaries under a Decurion (Corporal), including a variable number of Immunes (Lance Corporals/ PFC, soldiers with no additional responsibilities, but excused guard etc.). The command group is the Centurion (Captain, the Company Commander), Optio (Lieutenant, the second in command), Tessararius (2nd Lieutenant, the Guard Commander) and the "Colour Party"/ Signals Det of the Signifer (carried the Colour) and Courican (Horn Blower)

 

6 Centuries (Companies) form a Cohort (Battalion). The senior Centurion (Pilus Prior) is the Cohort Commander (Lt Col). There are 10 Cohorts in a Legion (the 1st Cohort is slightly larger but only has 5 larger Centuries). The 5 Centurions of the 1st Cohort are all ranked as Primi Ordines (Majors), senior to everyone bar the Cohort Commanders. With them is the Primus Pilus, the "First Spear". He is the tactical commander of the Legion and ranked as a full Colonel. Lucius Varinus in "Rome" was the Colonel of the 13th Legion.

 

Above them are the Legion/Divisional HQ. The Legate is a Senator and Legionary Commander (Full General), below him is the Tribune of the Broad Stripe (Lieutenant General, the second in command, normally appointed by the Senate as a trainee Legion Commander), 5 Tribunes of the Narrow Stripe (Brigadiers, the Divisional staff) and the Prefect (the third in Command, a "late entry" general officer ranking as a Major General).

Edited June 30, 2008 by 67th Tigers

[DesertFox]

Degenerate

I am trying to get a comparison between that and the Roman Legion of the Third Century. If I understand some sources, some Third Century Emperors tried to raise the army as high as around 600,000 or what sounds like four times the numbers listed at its height. That and it sounds like if anything, population had dropped. That would seem to support an extremely heavy economic straining.

 

With troops not being allowed to serve in their Homeland, does that mean that those defending the Italian Peninsula (including Rome itself) would come from elsewhere?

Edited June 8, 2008 by DesertFox

[Degenerate]

Degenerate

I am trying to get a comparison between that and the Roman Legion of the Third Century. If I understand some sources, some Third Century Emperors tried to raise the army as high as around 600,000 or what sounds like four times the numbers listed at its height. That and it sounds like if anything, population had dropped. That would seem to support an extremely heavy economic straining.

 

With troops not being allowed to serve in their Homeland, does that mean that those defending the Italian Peninsula (including Rome itself) would come from elsewhere?

 

Is that 600,000 including auxilliaries or just the legions? I understand that there were many more "legions" in later periods but that both strength and quality were much reduced. This may be due to their being mostly raised at short notice rather than the quality standing legions of earlier periods.

[Degenerate]

With troops not being allowed to serve in their Homeland, does that mean that those defending the Italian Peninsula (including Rome itself) would come from elsewhere?

 

I am not sure but it would make sense. Prevents them conspiring with rebellious local leaders and ensures they have no local roots to reduce their willingness to obey orders if an uprising needs to be put down.

[67th Tigers]

Degenerate

I am trying to get a comparison between that and the Roman Legion of the Third Century. If I understand some sources, some Third Century Emperors tried to raise the army as high as around 600,000 or what sounds like four times the numbers listed at its height. That and it sounds like if anything, population had dropped. That would seem to support an extremely heavy economic straining.

 

With troops not being allowed to serve in their Homeland, does that mean that those defending the Italian Peninsula (including Rome itself) would come from elsewhere?

 

For most of the early Empire (Augustus to Diocletian) there were roughly 30 Legions, each with 3-5,000 effective men (i.e. 100,000 - 150,000 men), and 350-400 Auxilia Regiments (150,000-200,000). Auxilia certainly could be stationed in their home provinces, the Britannia garrison for much of its history was 3 legions and 30 locally raised auxilia regiments.

 

Diocletian remodelled the Army, and the old Legion disappeared, replaced by a Legion roughly half the size (and twice as numerous), with overall strength remaining in the 200-300,000 area.

[DesertFox]

Is that 600,000 including auxilliaries or just the legions? I understand that there were many more "legions" in later periods but that both strength and quality were much reduced. This may be due to their being mostly raised at short notice rather than the quality standing legions of earlier periods.

 

I am not sure the answer for your first question.

What the lecturer also stated was the money was de-valuated by putting less and less silver to pay for the troops. It was not until Constantine that a gold coinage was stabilized.

[DougRichards]

Not just seige weapons as such, but organic field artillery:

 

The average legion contained approximately 650 artillerymen, not including artificers, or roughly a cohort. Consider this to be the modern equivalent of an infantry division having a battalion of artillery.

 

The onager was a seige weapon, which under certain circumstances could be used in the field. Peddie states that according to Vegetius a legion had 10 onagri, with a carroballista per century, in other words around 60 carroballistae being available to a legion. In the same way that few modern commanders would parcel out one support weapon per company, it is likely that these support weapons were grouped in batteries.

 

Another comment on the Roman military: it wasn't all Legions.

 

Interesting illustrations of the use of independent cohorts for colonial policing can be found in the Bible: Acts 23 includes the following:

 

23 And he called to him two of the centurions and said, "Get two hundred soldiers ready by the third hour of the night to proceed to Caesarea, with seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen."

 

24They were also to provide mounts to put Paul on and bring him safely to Felix the governor.

 

Snip

 

31So the soldiers, in accordance with their orders, took Paul and brought him by night to Antipatris.

 

32But the next day, leaving the horsemen to go on with him, they returned to the barracks.

 

The implication being 'two hundred soldiers' - heavy infantry, 'two hundred spearmen' - light infantry and the 70 horsemen. All of course being auxillia, with the possible exception of senior officers. This would have been around 35AD.

 

Matthew 8, Luke 7, Mark 15 and Acts 10 all showing examples of members of the Roman military doing 'hearts and minds' work in occupied territory.

[Archie Pellagio]

The rank structure of the Legion:

 

A century consists of 8 Contubernium (Squads) of 9 Legionaries under a Decurion (Corporal), including a variable number of Immunes (Lance Corporals/ PFC, soldiers with no additional responsibilities, but excused guard etc.). The command group is the Centurion (Captain, the Company Commander), Optio (Lieutenant, the second in command), Tessararius (2nd Lieutenant, the Guard Commander) and the "Colour Party"/ Signals Det of the Signifer (carried the Colour) and Courican (Horn Blower)

 

6 Centuries (Companies) form a Cohort (Battalion). The senior Centurion (Pilus Prior) is the Cohort Commander (Lt Col). There are 10 Cohorts in a Legion (the 1st Cohort is slightly larger but only has 5 larger Centuries). The 5 Centurions of the 1st Cohort are all ranked as Primi Ordines (Majors), senior to everyone bar the Cohort Commanders. With them is the Primus Pilus, the "First Spear". He is the tactical commander of the Legion and ranked as a full Colonel. Lucius Varinus in "Rome" was the Colonel of the 13th Legion.

 

Above them are the Legion/Divisional HQ. The Legate is an Equestrian and Legionary Commander (Full General), below him is the Tribune of the Broad Stripe (Lieutenant General, the second in command, normally appointed by the Senate as a trainee Legion Commander), 5 Tribunes of the Narrow Stripe (Brigadiers, the Divisional staff) and the Prefect (the third in Command, a "late entry" general officer ranking as a Major General).

 

Beautiful post!

Thanks

[smith]

1) Early Imperial period. By this time there was a standing army of about 30 legions maintained

 

There wasn't quite that many until the time of Trajan. Augustus had a standing army of 25.

 

2) 5000 or so men

I think there were 6,000 during the High Empire.

 

3) Ballpark figure between 50 and 100 million? Hard to pin down as the empire changed in size frequently.

 

 

Maybe the latter, although plagues caused population losses in Aurelius's time, and later.

 

4) Depends on the period but earlier legions wore chainmail armour and later the familiar "lorica segmenta" armour.

 

Lorica segmentata predominated from roughly the first century to the end of the second, or early third, when scale and mail began replacing it. Some lorica segmentata persisted until the mid third century.

Edited June 9, 2008 by smith

[smith]

Degenerate

I am trying to get a comparison between that and the Roman Legion of the Third Century. If I understand some sources, some Third Century Emperors tried to raise the army as high as around 600,000 or what sounds like four times the numbers listed at its height.

 

It was increased, especially late in the century, although the army of Severus was already bigger. In addition to being more numerous, on paper, third century troops were also supposed to have been better armored. Also, by the third century the soldier was more of a spearman than a swordsman.

 

 

That and it sounds like if anything, population had dropped. That would seem to support an extremely heavy economic straining.

 

Yes, population took a beating e.g. Alexandria is said to have lost two thirds of its population during the plague of c 251-266. Heather certainly concurs about the increased economic burden, but attributed it mainly to having to confront the new Persian "superpower."

Edited June 9, 2008 by smith

[Guest aevans]

The overall tactical command of the primus pilus is problematical. He didn't just nominally lead his cohort in combat, he was there in person. I think it's more proper to say that he was a man of proven courage and personal authority, which made his leadership of the strongest cohort a combat multiplier. One has to remember that the centurions weren't really officers as we think of them today, but more like first sergeants and sergeants major whose company and battalion commanders were permanently absent. The tribunes actually directed deployment and maneuver on the battlefield (what little there was).

[Sardaukar]

The overall tactical command of the primus pilus is problematical. He didn't just nominally lead his cohort in combat, he was there in person. I think it's more proper to say that he was a man of proven courage and personal authority, which made his leadership of the strongest cohort a combat multiplier. One has to remember that the centurions weren't really officers as we think of them today, but more like first sergeants and sergeants major whose company and battalion commanders were permanently absent. The tribunes actually directed deployment and maneuver on the battlefield (what little there was).

 

Centurions were required to have leadership style based on personal example and leading from front rank, leading to heavy casualties among them. Tribunes, legates and overall generals were encouraged to lead from right behind the lines of troops on horseback, so they could immediately direct reinforcements where needed, but still out of melee. Tessararius and Optio were situated in the back of the century to keep the discipline and formation intact.

 

It'd still be mistake to equate centurions as NCOs, their status was totally different from Aquilifer, Signifer etc. who could be considered senior NCOs. Same with Tessararius, he was more of company sergeant major than 2nd Lt. Optio, on the other hand, could be thought to be equivalent of company XO.

Edited June 9, 2008 by Sardaukar

[Guest aevans]

It'd still be mistake to equate centurions as NCOs, their status was totally different from Aquilifer, Signifer etc. who could be considered senior NCOs. Same with Tessararius, he was more of company sergeant major than 2nd Lt. Optio, on the other hand, could be thought to be equivalent of company XO.

 

Aquilifer, Signifer, etc. were appointments of honor. They were standard bearers, not tactical or administrative leaders. Tesserarii and optii were probably equivalent in responsibility to corporals and sergeants respectively. Centurions were most equivalent to warrant officers in the Commonwealth sense -- instructors of drill, upholders of discipline, and examples in action.

 

That they fought in the traditional right front leadership position of the phalanx has often been interpretted to mean that they were officers of some type, but it doesn't match with their practical function. The only "officer" function that a Centurion carried out was the issuance of minor administrative punishment. Otherwise, they were men "under authority", who could say come and go, do this or that, but who were not considered part of the traditional power structure, like Greek kings and princes who led the phalanx in person. Or later feudal or modern leaders. They had no authority or status outside of their military duties.

[Redbeard]

Aquilifer, Signifer, etc. were appointments of honor. They were standard bearers, not tactical or administrative leaders. Tesserarii and optii were probably equivalent in responsibility to corporals and sergeants respectively. Centurions were most equivalent to warrant officers in the Commonwealth sense -- instructors of drill, upholders of discipline, and examples in action.

 

That they fought in the traditional right front leadership position of the phalanx has often been interpretted to mean that they were officers of some type, but it doesn't match with their practical function. The only "officer" function that a Centurion carried out was the issuance of minor administrative punishment. Otherwise, they were men "under authority", who could say come and go, do this or that, but who were not considered part of the traditional power structure, like Greek kings and princes who led the phalanx in person. Or later feudal or modern leaders. They had no authority or status outside of their military duties.

 

Wouldn't that apply to any junior/company grade officer at any time ("...no authority or status outside of their military duties")?

 

Anyway, even the most aristocratic armies of the musket and ball era appear to have had some element of officers from the ranks, and in the French revolutionary/Napoleonic - which has heavily influenced all armies since - the officer elevated from the ranks became the rule rather than the exception. At least he was expected to start as a NCO and then go on to be officer (the German (and Scandinavian) model), and although commoners would rarely advance to field or General rank, that would only confirm the company officer role being considered safe for commoners and conisistent with Roman practice - but still an officer role - and without the same sharp distinction between NCO and officer as in the British and US armies. AFAIK the company officers of professional rennaesaince armies also were from the ranks and regimental commanders often too, but the generals from the political ruling classes (nobles).

 

If there is a divergence in the officer role it would be our present day and only few decades old "promotion on merrit alone" system - or at least so it claims to be. If we dropped the claim it perhaps wouldn't be so different.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[67th Tigers]

The career progression would look something like:

 

Militar= 1x normal pay

Immune (excused Guard duty, normally troops with no additional tactical responsibility but with additional administrative functions, such as weapon teacher etc.) = 1x pay

 

Decurion (commands an tent group/ a rank in battle order) = 1.5x pay

Tessiarius (guard commander, and rank closer, technically 3i/c occupying the position the 2Lt would in a musket warfare army) = 1.5x pay

Optio (2i/c and rank closer, occupying the tactical position the Lt would do in a musket warfare army) = 2x pay

Signifer (colour bearer) and Cornician = 2x pay (because it was a very dangerous job, it was a fast track to the Centurionate though, and generally required. The Signifer was also the understudy for the Centurion, and became acting OC should the Centurion by killed or wounded)

 

Centurion: 30-50x pay depending on grade

 

In a typical Century of 80:

72 Junior Ranks (Militars and Immunes) - equate to Ptes and Cpls

9 Senior Ranks (8 Rank/ "Squad" Leaders and the Tessiarius, who is a perhaps best modelled as the Company Sergeant) - Sergeants

3 Junior Officers/ Officer Cadets (Optio, Signifer and Cornician)

1 Company Officer (Centurion)

 

The gulf that would in our armies be a "Commission" is the promotion to Centurion. Although many Centurions did come from the ranks (typically taking at least 15 years to reach that level), many came from Equestrians who typically were immediately Commissioned as a Centurion, or from other promising men who were fast tracked to trainee Signifer (the equivalent of a Gentleman Volunteer in Wellington's time), taking their turn as Signifer and being Commissioned Centurion if they survived and did well.

[Guest JamesG123]

I know the Legions got sent to a specific region for long periods, but did the legions have a personnel rotation system? Especally during peace time garrison. Did a soldier coming up thru the ranks have to wait for someone above them to die or retire before the could move up, or could someone transfer to another legion that had an opening?

[Sardaukar]

Aquilifer, Signifer, etc. were appointments of honor. They were standard bearers, not tactical or administrative leaders. Tesserarii and optii were probably equivalent in responsibility to corporals and sergeants respectively. Centurions were most equivalent to warrant officers in the Commonwealth sense -- instructors of drill, upholders of discipline, and examples in action.

 

That they fought in the traditional right front leadership position of the phalanx has often been interpretted to mean that they were officers of some type, but it doesn't match with their practical function. The only "officer" function that a Centurion carried out was the issuance of minor administrative punishment. Otherwise, they were men "under authority", who could say come and go, do this or that, but who were not considered part of the traditional power structure, like Greek kings and princes who led the phalanx in person. Or later feudal or modern leaders. They had no authority or status outside of their military duties.

 

I'd strongly beg to differ with that.

 

They were appointments of honour, but they were very important leaders. Especially tactically. Anyone telling Aquilifer or Signifer was not tactically significant leader might just forget that things they carried were the most important rally and command points to legion and cohort...and were used that way.

 

I think you mistake ancient officer to US officer. In ancient armies, officers fought in front while they higher echelon "managed the battle"..which I think is the proper US saying.. Also, you equate Roman legion organization to Greek phalanx. Your post belays quite interesting disregard towards history .

Edited June 9, 2008 by Sardaukar

[Guest aevans]

I'd strongly beg to differ with that.

 

They were appointments of honour, but they were very important leaders. Especially tactically. Anyone telling Aquilifer or Signifer was not tactically significant leader might just forget that things they carried were the most important rally and command points to legion and cohort...and were used that way.

 

Same same any set of battlefield standards. But standard bearers don't give orders, they just carry the flag. If Roman standard bearers had any authority, it was totally informal, based on the fact that you had to be an ass kicker to get the job. Still, the major qualification, just as it was later on in history, was a total disregard of personal safety, not any particular leadership or tactical skill.

[Sardaukar]

Same same any set of battlefield standards. But standard bearers don't give orders, they just carry the flag. If Roman standard bearers had any authority, it was totally informal, based on the fact that you had to be an ass kicker to get the job. Still, the major qualification, just as it was later on in history, was a total disregard of personal safety, not any particular leadership or tactical skill.

 

That is why they were senior NCOs..as I said in my prevous post...

[Sardaukar]

Centurions on the other hand, both socially and militarily, enjoyed totally different status than other legionaries. But maybe all ancient writers and modern historians were wrong and they were just glorified drill sergeants with no impact to battles...

[Guest aevans]

Wouldn't that apply to any junior/company grade officer at any time ("...no authority or status outside of their military duties")?

 

Not really -- junior "officers" in feudal times were sometimes junior nobles, but mostly men at arms executing the authority of a noble of some type. After the cooption of the nobility into the military profession, junior officers were generally of the aristocracy.

 

Anyway, even the most aristocratic armies of the musket and ball era...

The important difference being that while centurions and their subofficials were mostly non-equestrian, the modern officers were, until the 20th Century, mostly aristocratic. The Roman centurion represented derived authority that didn't exist outside of his military duties. The modern officer until recently served as an expression -- and to some degree confirmation -- of inherrent social authority. That makes the difference.

 

AFAIK the company officers of professional rennaesaince armies also were from the ranks and regimental commanders often too, but the generals from the political ruling classes (nobles).

 

The Late 16th - Early 17th Century company officer was a non-commissioned man. The cooption of the nobility into the military profession changed this, because there were more piglets than the old system had teats.

 

If there is a divergence in the officer role it would be our present day and only few decades old "promotion on merrit alone" system - or at least so it claims to be. If we dropped the claim it perhaps wouldn't be so different.

 

But that is a recent change. Even in the US it was understood that prior to the 20th Century an officer should be a man of good breeding and character, even if there was no formal aristocracy. And there were in fact tight social controls on regular commissions, especially in the Navy. (Militia commissions are another matter entirely.) Even those that came from relatively humble beginnings were conferred a certain amount of social status through their commissions. In Rome, while some young blades of the equestrian class were directly appointed to centurion rank, by far the majority were men of common stock who had no authority in society except as government officials and then only in the line of duty.

[Sardaukar]

The Roman centurion represented derived authority that didn't exist outside of his military duties.

 

You are talking out of you ass here..and you know it.

 

Modern military officer (or NCO) does not either..meaning their authority derives from their rank..in military. What on earth posessed you stating something like that ?

 

 

But I think you should know the social status of centurion better than that.

Edited June 9, 2008 by Sardaukar

[Guest aevans]

That is why they were senior NCOs..as I said in my prevous post...

 

Even in our armies, the regimental colors are carried by sergeants, or even corporals. To the Romans, as to us, the men appointed these jobs had narrowly circumscribed duties -- be courageous, don't drop the colors, stand where the Boss tells you to, look brave.