Roman Legion Questions

Sardaukar · June 9, 2008

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.

OK..if you say so.

Them were the NCOs of the legion. Centurions, as about all military historians say, were not NCOs.

June 9, 2008

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.

Vegetius on the centurion:

The centurion in the infantry is chosen for his size, strength and dexterity in throwing his missile weapons and for his skill in the use of his sword and shield; in short for his expertness in all the exercises. He is to be vigilant, temperate, active and readier to execute the orders he receives than to talk; Strict in exercising and keeping up proper discipline among his soldiers, in obliging them to appear clean and well-dressed and to have their arms constantly rubbed and bright (Vegetius.De Re Militari, II, 14)

Compare this with the common advice given on the duties of NCOs in the 19th Century, which was almost identical. Like I said, centurions were much more senior NCOs without officers than they were officers themselves.

As for the social authority of the centurion outside of the army, what authority did he have? He was generally on a frontier -- the legions were kept out of Rome, remember, and out of Italy in general, after a while -- away from anybody he knew except for the army, among mostly local peoples whose language he might only speak as a secondary tongue. Yeah, he could have been a big wheel in society around the legionary fort, but only because he was a big wheel in the army to begin with.

June 9, 2008

OK..if you say so.
Them were the NCOs of the legion. Centurions, as about all military historians say, were not NCOs.

I think you know by now that I don't kowtow to received wisdoms. Aside from that, I've read historians who do not count centurions as officers, but as a certain type of hermaphrodite for which we have no equivalent today. Once again, that's why I chose to describe them as senior NCOs with their officers on permanent vacation -- that seems to me capture best their level of authority and responsibility.

Colin Williams · June 10, 2008

It's interesting to consider that among the Germanic barbarian successors to the Roman Empire, lords fought alongside their men, with the most significant distinction in military organization being between the well-equipped and experienced members of the chief's/king's war band and the "nation in arms" of a general mobilization. However, once this proto-nobility started fighting on horseback, it became common to give local command of the infantry to soldiers of lesser status. Aristocrats only returned to the ranks with the rise of the musket and pike, the diminishing need for cavalry, and the appearance of national (as opposed to mercenary) armies. Thus in the "modern" era, we see the young aristocrat as a junior officer with the infantry displacing the experienced sergeant in titular command of a unit but still relying on him to be the true authority in the ranks. The commissioned/noncommissioned officer system is a legacy of this class distinction, albeit with class being defined in these days mostly whether one has a college education.

Practically a revolution in military affairs, wasn't it??

swerve · June 10, 2008

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....

I'm not sure what you mean by "the cooption of the nobility into the military profession", since the raison d'etre of the feudal nobility was the profession of arms. How can you be co-opted into the activity which defines, & from which ultimately you derive, your status? How do you think noble families got to be noble in the first place? Just look at the origins of titles - many derived from military command.

June 10, 2008

I'm not sure what you mean by "the cooption of the nobility into the military profession", since the raison d'etre of the feudal nobility was the profession of arms. How can you be co-opted into the activity which defines, & from which ultimately you derive, your status? How do you think noble families got to be noble in the first place? Just look at the origins of titles - many derived from military command.

With the knocking down of castles, the nobility lost their independence. With the professionalization of the military, the nobility were in danger of their traditional prerogatives being undermined by commoners. So in most places they made a deal with the monarch -- we'll be military officers if you limit or mostly limit the profession to us and allow us to continue to draw rent from lands we used to hold in fief.

Yama · June 10, 2008

I think you know by now that I don't kowtow to received wisdoms. Aside from that, I've read historians who do not count centurions as officers, but as a certain type of hermaphrodite for which we have no equivalent today.

Precisely. "Centurion" was not so much a rank in itself, but a catchall term to several ranks, much like a term "officer" today. Highest ranked centurions would have been equivalent to modern senior officers, lowest ranked could be described closer to NCOs. Anyway, that would be only a very crude generalization and arguing is very much pointless since the entire system was so totally different from what modern armies have.

Imagine Roman military historians reading about our system and trying to figure out, whether, say, "Lieutenant Colonel" would fit to a definition of a tribune, centurion or perhaps a legate?

Edited June 10, 2008 by Yama

R011 · June 11, 2008

Even in our armies, the regimental colors are carried by sergeants, or even corporals.

In British tradition armies, at least, infantry regimental colours are borne by Second Lieutenants. There's a reason the rank used to be called Ensign.

They are, however, normally escorted by the battalion's most senior Colour Sergeants (Staff Sergeant in most British armies, Warrant Officer in Canada)

Edited June 11, 2008 by R011

swerve · June 11, 2008

With the knocking down of castles, the nobility lost their independence. With the professionalization of the military, the nobility were in danger of their traditional prerogatives being undermined by commoners. So in most places they made a deal with the monarch -- we'll be military officers if you limit or mostly limit the profession to us and allow us to continue to draw rent from lands we used to hold in fief.

What knocking down of castles? Castles became obsolete. Those demolished were more likely to be knocked down by their owners (considered unsightly, they wanted the stone for building a posh new house, or they sold the stone) than anyone else. Some were converted into houses, with big holes being knocked in walls for large windows. Many were simply abandoned, while their owners moved into a more comfortable manor house. Some castles, particularly those in towns, were subsequently treated as stone quarries, so disappeared without being knocked down. Oh, & many castles were royal possessions.

The aristocracy here in the UK (& in many other countries) never stopped serving in the military. They never made any deal, they just carried on in their accustomed way. There was no formal or royal restriction on who could serve as an officer. Lands held in fief largely became recognised as private property, able to be bought and sold.

Your description partly applies to France, but far from fully. The formal system of reserving important jobs for the nobility didn't apply far enough down to affect such things as junior or middle-ranking officer appointments until centuries after castles had become irrelevant, & when it was formalised for high-ranking posts, castles certainly hadn't been demolished. It was, in fact, mostly a formalisation of existing feudal practice, & could be seen as defining what degree of feudalism still existed, with the disappearance of serfdom having cut away much of its basis. BTW, one of the things the post-mediaeval French system permitted was for a family to earn nobility by serving as military officers . . . . Back to origins.

You may be able to find a country which fits your description somewhere in Europe, but I can't think where.

Edited June 11, 2008 by swerve

June 11, 2008

What knocking down of castles?

You're being far too literal, swerve (which wouldn't be anything new). Of course most castles weren't knocked down -- I was using the expression as shorthand for the rise of large royal artillery parks and the consequent collapse of feudalism. Once the French king and a German duke or two made an example out of a few recalcitrant nobles, the rest got the message.

The aristocracy here in the UK (& in many other countries) never stopped serving in the military. They never made any deal...

A formal deal? No. A collection of accomodations that ammounted to the same thing? Yes.

vardulli · June 11, 2008

peoples of the Roman army-

i think to remember that despite all the evidence that there is much that is not clear about the Roman army

also that there are variations over time and place

during the 1st century people from Rome and Italy decline as a percentage of the soldiers in the legions

IIRC it was after the Batavian revolt in 69 that auxiliary troops were stationed away from their homeland.

however troops were often recruited locally, so that for instance a soldier from Gloucester, England served in the North of England in a unit originally raised in northern Spain decades earlier.

therefore the origins of the soldiers in the unit may not match the title of the auxiliary cohort/ala

and so you would find locals serving locally.

the garrison of Britain was not strictly speaking 30 locally recruited auxiliary units, but it is certainly the case that local recruit served in these units- recruits could and did get posted abroad and units could be sent in whole or in part to other provinces, from which they may never return.

armour-

it is not possible to state which armour types were predominate

for instance Trajans Column - shows legionaries in segmentata during Trajans Dacian campaigns

the Adamklissi monument - also shows legionaries during the same wars, with not a shred of segmentata. the soldiers all wear mail or scale.

in fact outside of Trajans column and similar triumphal monuments, I am not aware of a definite example (there are some 'maybes') of a representation of a Roman soldier in segmentata, whereas mail and scale are represented. It could be that the unarmoured examples from 'grave stones' would have worn segmentata.

archaeological remains show all three major armour types and I doubt if it is possible to get a relative percentage from these

June 11, 2008

Precisely. "Centurion" was not so much a rank in itself, but a catchall term to several ranks, much like a term "officer" today...

The problem with equating a centurion to an officer is that his position existed within the context of a very flat organizational structure. All of the variations in the centurion's titles are terms for relative seniority within a group of men who corporately all had the same job -- personally lead 80-160 men in close combat. Any authority that the more senior centurions had outside of their cohorts was totally at the discretion of the legate and tribunes. Of course these officials were smart to take advantage of the experience of their centurions, but nobody and nothing required them to.

Imagine Roman military historians reading about our system and trying to figure out, whether, say, "Lieutenant Colonel" would fit to a definition of a tribune, centurion or perhaps a legate?

THey might have trouble understanding that a hierarchy of appointments wasn't about who was first among equals.

vardulli · June 11, 2008

Officers etc

standard-bearers- did have authority and role other than simply holding the flag.

IIRC they were responsible for managing the soldiers pay and savings etc.

centurions - did have roles outside the legions and were not necessarily just stuck out on the frontiers with the legions

when i get to my sources (ie books)

i will be able to provide better examples of centurions holding positions of authority away from the legions.

there was one IIRC who held a post of regional responsibility

and there more centurions about than the number of posts in the army structure

swerve · June 11, 2008

You're being far too literal, swerve (which wouldn't be anything new). Of course most castles weren't knocked down -- I was using the expression as shorthand for the rise of large royal artillery parks and the consequent collapse of feudalism. Once the French king and a German duke or two made an example out of a few recalcitrant nobles, the rest got the message.

A formal deal? No. A collection of accomodations that ammounted to the same thing? Yes.

You're talking about the struggles for power between centralising monarchs & nobles seeking to maintain (or in some cases increase) their power & privileges. This process did not involve "co-opting" the nobility into military service. As I've pointed out, they were military from the start, & never ceased to be, & the accomodations you describe did not occur everywhere. In Poland, for example, the nobility won the power struggle with the monarchy, effectively turning the state into a an aristocratic republic with an elected head (the king). In Germany, many individual rulers managed to cement their power within their own domains, at the expense of the imperial power, & one can argue that again, the monarchy lost, though in this case largely to magnates who by establishing their personal authority, made themselves into monarchs. Italy was a mixed story. Switzerland & the Netherlands were different again. Austria actually managed to have different resolutions within the same domain, depending on the territory. In England, the attempt to establish the accomodation you describe resulted in one executed monarch, one deposed, & a whole bunch of heirs passed over in favour of a candidate selected by the gentry. Doesn't sound as if the large royal artillery park was much use in cementing royal authority here, does it?

Feudalism collapsed for many reasons, & large royal artillery parks weren't the deciding factor. The monarchy needed lots of money to buy all that artillery - and that couldn't happen in a feudal system with magnates whose wealth was on the same order as the monarchs. Royal artillery was as much a result of the end of feudalism as a cause.

Edited June 11, 2008 by swerve

toysoldier · June 11, 2008

BTW, one of the things the post-mediaeval French system permitted was for a family to earn nobility by serving as military officers . . . . Back to origins.

Yeah, like Cleonte in Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme :rolleyes:

They still made the difference between noblesse de robe y noblesse de epeé, and between titles from before the reign of Louis IX and after.

Without getting outright nobility with titles and all, there was very high status to be acquired through distinguished military service, specially if a family devoted to that generation after generation. Correct me if am wrong, but that was the case in the British Navy on her prime.

Back on topic, what do you people make of the evocatii?

June 11, 2008

You're talking about the struggles for power between centralising monarchs & nobles seeking to maintain (or in some cases increase) their power & privileges...

Yes. Of course. YOu thought I was talking about Teletubbies, maybe?

Central authority consolidated itself in many ways (or atempted to). But the most successful and ultimately the founders of the modern nation states all pretty much followed the same pattern. They established centralized royal armies that required large amounts of cash to operate, which led to the monetization of national economies and the cooption of the nobility into the military profession in compensation for the loss of feudal authority. (Of course the nobility had military obligations previously, this made cooption easy, it doesn't mean theree wasn't cooption.) Once again, talking about royal artillery parks was just shorthand for the entire process. Ya gotta get outside of literal legalism, swerve.

Edited June 11, 2008 by aevans

DesertFox · June 14, 2008

If I might ask, what are the various books which were used as sources for your materials.

This is to all people who have given information out

Edited June 14, 2008 by DesertFox

Sardaukar · June 14, 2008

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=7008

Sardaukar · June 14, 2008

For example:

"The Later Roman Empire 294-602 A.D." - A.H.M Jones

"The Fall of the Roman Empire - a Reappraisal" - Michael Grant

"The Fall of the Roman Empire -the military explanation" - Arthur Ferrill

"Generallisimos of the Western Roman Empire" - John Michael O'Flynn - a look at the role of Arbrogast, Stilicho, Constantius, Aetius and Ricimer and Odovacer in the break-up and evolution of the Western Empire

Elton, Hugh, Warfare in Roman Europe AD 350-425(US) (UK) (DE) (CA) (Oxford 1996).

Nicasie, Martijn, Twilight of Empire, the Roman Army from the Reign of Diocletian until the Battle of Adrianople(US) (UK) (DE) (CA) (Amsterdam 1997).

Those could give quite a good start.

More general books:

Roman Army

Bohec, Yann Le, Les légions de Rome sous le Haut-Empire (2000 Lyon)

Goldsworthy, Adrian, The Roman Army at War(US) (UK) (DE) (CA) ()

Goldsworthy, Adrian, The Complete Roman Army(US) (UK) (DE) (CA)

Goldsworthy, Adrian, In the Name of Rome(US) (UK) (DE) (CA)

Junkelmann, Marcus, Die Legionen des Augustus(US) (UK) (DE) (CA) (Mainz 1986).

Junkelmann, Marcus, Die Reiter Roms(US) (UK) (DE) (CA), 3 vols. (Mainz 1990-2).

Keppie, Lawrence, The Making of the Roman Army(US) (UK) (DE) (CA)

Luttwak, Edward, Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire(US) (UK) (DE) (CA)

Edited June 14, 2008 by Sardaukar

June 14, 2008

Warry, Connolly, Luttwak.

Sardaukar · June 28, 2008

Vegetius on the centurion:

The centurion in the infantry is chosen for his size, strength and dexterity in throwing his missile weapons and for his skill in the use of his sword and shield; in short for his expertness in all the exercises. He is to be vigilant, temperate, active and readier to execute the orders he receives than to talk; Strict in exercising and keeping up proper discipline among his soldiers, in obliging them to appear clean and well-dressed and to have their arms constantly rubbed and bright (Vegetius.De Re Militari, II, 14)

Compare this with the common advice given on the duties of NCOs in the 19th Century, which was almost identical. Like I said, centurions were much more senior NCOs without officers than they were officers themselves.

As for the social authority of the centurion outside of the army, what authority did he have? He was generally on a frontier -- the legions were kept out of Rome, remember, and out of Italy in general, after a while -- away from anybody he knew except for the army, among mostly local peoples whose language he might only speak as a secondary tongue. Yeah, he could have been a big wheel in society around the legionary fort, but only because he was a big wheel in the army to begin with.

Your concept that centurions were NCOs falls apart in several aspects:

1. Direct commissioning of equestrians as centurions.

For example, Pliny Younger secured the rank of centurion for one of his clients, Metillus Crispus, presenting him with 40 000 sesterces to equip himself. Men from social status only second to those with senatorial status would never have accepted "NCO position" in socially sensitive society as Rome. Rank of centurion was very prestigious and that was emphasized by willingness of equestrians to serve as centurions.

2. Pay.

While NCO ranks were often described in payrolls as having "one and half pay or double pay", centurion was paid at least ten times the normal soldier.

3. Command of detachment (vexillations)

Centurions were often in command of detachments, often sent outside of the province legion was. That was clearly not a job of NCO. Also, lot of those missions were clearly not military missions. Thus, centurions did have roles outside the military ans good social status.

4. Place in command staff

Apart from Primi Ordines (senior centurions), for example Titus Vespasianus and Arrian had several centurions seconded from their units in their immediate following. Does not sound very NCO either.

Edited June 28, 2008 by Sardaukar

June 29, 2008

Look, I didn't say that centurions were NCOs in every respect. I said that in our terms their responsibilities most closely resenble those of senior NCOs whose officers are permanently absent. We have no direct equivalent.

Sardaukar · June 29, 2008

Look, I didn't say that centurions were NCOs in every respect. I said that in our terms their responsibilities most closely resenble those of senior NCOs whose officers are permanently absent. We have no direct equivalent.

OK, I guess I misunderstood you.

IMHO, the centurion responsibilities could easily be anything between Sergeant Major and Lt. Colonel/Colonel. I still maintain the opinion that they are closer to modern officers than NCOs since there were closer equivalents to modern NCO than centurion in legion. For example, Aquilifer was definitely very close to modern most senior NCO in unit, with duties like being paymaster too...sort of Regimental Sergeant Major/Colour Sergeant.

It is quite interesting how professional the organization of legion was. It did not have predecessor and it took about 1000 years after before similar organizations started to arrive.

Edited June 29, 2008 by Sardaukar

Tomexe · June 30, 2008

Roman legions are fun to study. I just love the detective work in teasing out how they ran.

The Osprey Roman titles are not bad if you need a quick reference, especially the ones by Nick Sekunda. Their quite portable, and good at digesting the rival opinions about what did what.

Adrian Goldsworthy's books are also very good. I have ready The Punic Wars, In The Name of Rome and The Complete Roman Army

For the Late Roman Army try Warren Treadgolds "Byzantium and its Army, 284-1081"

IIRC its in The Complete Roman Army that he published the translations of those wonderful papyri that pretty much nail down what a 2nd Century turma, century and cohort should be.

For the Late Roman Army try Warren Treadgolds "Byzantium and its Army, 284-1081"

While there are analogs to modern military ranks in Republican and Principate Legions and auxilia. They are not identical. Because the Legions were much simpler in both their logistics and support weapons, jobs we currently divide between at least two men, an officer and a NCO, were done by one. A Centurion was BOTH a Captain and a First Sergeant. There was not a need for the job to be split because Centuries are not that big in total number of men. And since they only needed food, water, and a limited amount of donkey fodder and all other gear was carried on their poles or on the 10-12 asses assigned to each Century, they were really self contained and did not need what we would call a battalion level headquarters all the time.

According to Treadgolds theory the big legions were split up by Diocletian (other sources attribute this to Constantine thirty years later) in the 280s because 5000 men under one commander made that man too dangerous. Too likely to put himself up as a emperor himself. The legions were split into pairs of cohorts, and at that time they acquired a headquarters similar to the independent auxilia cohorts and a battalion staff. It was the Greek speaking Eastern Empire, who combined Roman tradition with a revival of the even OLDER Hellenistic military treatises native to that part of the Roman Empire that created military organizations that look VERY close to the regiments of 17th-19th century armies, except for their lack of the "doubled" command structure. That last feature was the addition of Western Europe's feudal military aristocracy as it tried to find a survival strategy. Since the 19th century the nation states have co opted this feature to attract the university educated to military service to handle new technologies and increasingly complex logistics. Today, if the doubled officer/NCO command structure had not been provided for us by history we would have to invent it. The need to manage logistics, the huge amount of information generated by modern communications, and the service and maintenance of our wonderful modern technologies pretty much DEMAND that the command be split in this fashion. No one person can handle it all- yet there still has to be someone to make final decisions and bear responsibility for them.

The big legions though, going back to the early republic, had a big gap between the centuries and the legion command staff. To make things even more strange to us, for several centuries the Legions had no commander present! Due to a historical accident and the fears and jealousies of the Roman polity, when the Roman army was increased from two legions to four in the middle 4th Century BC they refused to create a new office to command the two new legions. Originally there was one legion for each of the two Councils and the council was both 1/2 of the split Roman head of state AND commander of the legion. When they doubled the army, politics and jealousy kept the Senate from acting on creating offices for the new forces. Thus each pair of legions SHARED a commanding officer, who ALSO was the force commander- and one of the heads of state besides. Yet this force was the one that finally ended the century long war with the Samminites. Because it had won, there was no pressing need felt to make adjustments to this command situation. Over time this system became a cultural fossil until we get to the Punic Wars with Rome giving Councils and Pro-councils armies 4 legions strong. Such was the Roman resistance to creating new offices that even when they extended the military imperium down to the office of praetor you still had praetors/pro-praetor getting 2 legion commands! It was a force of two combined 4 legion consular armies that were colossally defeated at Cannae. And thats probably where they started thinking that each legion having a full time commander was a good idea, for its after the Second Punic War that you see the term legates in the context of a legionary office appearing.

Its ambiguous, but it seems that the legatus- literally delegate- was not originally a separate office but one of the existing tribunes who simply was given the authority by the council, praetor, or provincial governor in charge of his legion to act as his proxy in all matters regarding the legion. It had become a separate office by Octavian's time. The tribunes themselves are one of those things that don't fit when comparing the legion to a modern unit, for while they have the experience and education to be equivalent to a modern field grade officer- they have no permanent command or staff. The military tribunes appeared at about the same time as the four legion army, the maniple, and the three line battle formation. Its very tempting to think they were all a package of reforms but there is no real proof of that. Its also not a given that the tribunes were originally military in their function. It has been suggested that they may have originally been intended to act like the Spartan ephors and were there as much to watch the conduct of Council and Centurions and report on it to the Assembly of Plebes though if that was they case they very quickly became a strictly military office. In 311, if Livy is to be believed, sixteen tribunes were elected to 4 legions, which is suspiciously like one for each of the ordines and one for the equities. Sometime between then and the Punic Wars the number increased to six, and then stayed at that level till the Third Century AD. How they functioned has been long debated. There were not enough for one per cohort, too many for one per ordine. The thing that Nick Sekunda suggested thats intriguing was to simply take them at face value- that they were officers at the disposal of the legion commander, senior to centurions, and did what he told them and commanded the units he assigned to them on missions designated by him until further orders. This might be commanding one of the lines, a sector of the line, the reserve, the camp, whatever fit the commanders concept of how he wanted to fight the battle. To me this sounds intriguingly like tribunes were like the Combat Team headquarters of US Armored Divisions in WWII. A headquarters that various assets rotated through- except that this was all contained in one man. When operating he surely had at least a musician and maybe a standard bearer but they were borrowed out of the legions pool and not part of any special unit. The tribunes generally seem to have worked mounted. Given their social status tribunes probably did have a personal staff of servants and perhaps even bodyguards- but they would of come from his own estate and how they fit into the Army structure is unclear and the size would of varied from man to man and era to era.

In the Legion of the Principate, one of the Tribunes was the tribunes lacticalvi, identifiable by a wide purple band on his sleeve and the hem of his skirt (till trousers came in fashion, then he wore a purple belt or sash). As previously mentioned he was a young member of the senatorial class during this time. His office and this practice seems to have arisen in the late Republic, possibly during the troubled times of Marius and Sulla. Their job was originally as much to look out for the interests of the Senate and the Senatorial class as be an officer and regardless of their age and experience they were made senior to the other five tribunes. Prior to this all six tribunes were essentially equal. Pliny described tribunes dividing up into pairs and then rotating command tasks between pairs by month and between the two individuals on alternate days. This was probably quite literally true for a complete legion in camp being supervised by a "officer of the day". This description has often been extended to describe authority on the day of battle as well but that may be taking the illustration a bit to far. Tribunes in that time tended to be experienced men who had either been tribunes before or had been centurions or cavalry decurions. Even ex-councils and praetors would often serve as tribunes. In the Principate, even the normal tribunes tended to have much less experience, as by then the office was a step on a career path to commanding a auxiliary cohort, and beyond that becoming a provincial official.

Another fun puzzle is the over sized first cohort in the legions of the Principate. Why was it there and how was it used? For years its been included as the model of the legion of the Principate at its height, but no one has figured out what they did with it. In some recent studies its now been questioned whether it really was the classic model. First of all not all of the legionary fortresses that have been excavated and are known to be occupied between c100 and c280 have the necessary over sized barracks blocks to house such a unit. And most such units are along the European frontiers of the Rhine and Danube. And then when the big legions were split up in the 280's they were split into 5 pairs of cohorts each of the small size, suggesting that perhaps they were already gone before the legions were divided. It brings up the possibility that the big first cohort may not have been around as long as previously thought, and may have only existed in some units to begin with.

And as to the question why it existed, the more intriguing idea is that it was not a infantry combat unit at all. Experiments with modeling and reenacting Roman era combat cast doubt on how well a 160-200 man century could be commanded and maneuvered on the battlefield, and how they could integrate with the other 9 conventional cohorts and the similar cohorts of auxilia in a battle line. Another possibility is that the big cohort was designed to house and protect the legions immunes the soldiers with technical skills like the artillerymen- who in this time not only manned and serviced the torsion artillery but fabricated them and their munitions. The Legions in this early part of the Principate (and going back through to the late Republic at least) fabricated their own armor and weapons, as well as buildings of the semi-permanent winter camps and the later permanent stone legionary fortresses. But the Legions had to compete with the civilian world for these technically skilled individuals, and when they got a hold of one they could not give him up easily. As early as the Punic Wars, draftees with such skills were identified and recorded by the legion, so their skills could be called upon as needed, and they were given the status of immunes. Freedom from night guard duty and various manual labor tasks came with this,- though depending on their special skill they might still be working very hard indeed (masons and carpenters come to mind). This special status may eventually may not have been enough to prevent a shortage of such special skills. It would be highly logical to then take such skilled persons out of the line cohorts and concentrate them in a single unit. Skilled men would not be wasted in combat, and the centuries would not keep having men disappear out of their rank and be more able to keep a constant strength. Being a immunes had always been a position of honor in the Roman Army, so concentrating them all in the First Cohort, previously the unit of honor also makes sense. Making the first cohort a non combat unit gave its Centurions- the primi ordines, the five most experienced men in the legion- more time to focus on administrative tasks or doing things like helping tribunes lead vexillations. And the reduction from 6 to 5 centuries seems to clearly be to remove from the Primus Pilus the task of running a century on top of all his other duties.

Tomexe · June 30, 2008