Crassus' legions

[fretensis10]

Is there any information about Crassus' legions at Carrhae? I think Plutarch says he had seven legions. Were they simply numbered 1-7? Did any see battle before- I am guessing some were left over from the Spartacus fight. Otherwise, were the rest mostly green untested legions?

 

Any information on republican legions of this period would be helpful, especially on order of battle.

 

I have found Plutarch, Cassius Dio, and Arrian are our only sources on the battle. Am I missing any others?

[Primus Pilus]

There are no surviving records of names for Crassus' legions. Some of the legionaries may have come from Gaul with Publius Crassus when he transferred from Caesar to his father's command, but I can't even recall any ancient sources mentioning where Crassus even recruited the others. (His campaign was a painful embarrassment to Rome and was not overly detailed in the ancient accounts). One Augustan coin from 20 BC, showing the return of the standards shows an X on the standard that is returned. Perhaps one legion was Legio X, perhaps not.

 

Regardless, at this point, all 7 legions would have been numbered and were not likely to have been given extra names of distinction.

 

For the most part, the imperators attempted not to repeat legionary numbers, but Consular forces were always numbered in order of recruitment, beginning with Legio I. Crassus could have taken Legio I - VII (Syria was a pro consular command) assuming all legion's were recruited from scratch. This doesn't mean that all the recruits were green as many were likely veterans of various conflicts (Gaul, the eastern campaigns of Lucullus and Pompey, Hispania, the Servile Wars, etc.) but simply that the legions themselves were newly founded.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve!

 

 

This coin depicts the return by the Parthians to Augustus of one of the standards lost by Crassus' legions.

The Legion is identified by a number ten ("X"), ie a Tenth Legion.

Edited August 16, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Pompieus]

Plutarch says Crassus placed 7000 foot as garrisons in Mesopotamia in 54 and that he crossed the Euphrates with 7 legions, some of which were Pompeian veterans, in 53. However, in the battle Crassus formed a square with 12 cohorts on each side (48 cohorts) which doesn't correspond to 7 legions (70 cohorts). During the battle the younger Crassus, who with Cassius was a "wing" commander, made a sortie with 8 cohorts - if these cohorts were not part of the square we get 48+8=56. The remaining 14 cohorts might be accounted for by the 7000 men left in garrisons (14 cohorts at 500 each - the schematic figure for the strength of a cohort) or might have been in Cassius "wing".

 

Another argument could use the fact that Plutarch says Crassus lost 20,000 killed and 10,000 captured and that there were 10,000 survivors which Cassius and Bibulus formed into 2 legions to defend Syria and who later fought with Pompey at Pharsalus. 20,000 + 10,000 + 10,000 = 40,000 the schematic figure for 8 legions.

 

So Crassus had 7 or 8 legions. 2 had been left in Syria by Pompey in 63 BC. Gabinius who came out as governor in 57 had been given the right to recruit troops in 58 and probably brought out reinforcements, which he used to restore Ptolemy Auletes in Egypt. And Crassus himself raised troops in 55, though he was obstructed by tribunes and lost some men at sea on the way East.

 

The numerals of the legions are probably unknowable (althought the coin with numeral "X" is interesting) because the scheme used during the republic is not understood. In 53BCE there were probably 23 or 24 legions in existence: 4 in Spain, 2 in Cilicia, 10 in Gaul under Caesar and 7 or 8 in Syria. Numerals I-IV were reserved for the consuls and Caesar had VI-XV. Crassus may have duplicated the numerals of Caesars army or used XVI and up.

[longshotgene]

From what I always read his order of battle was not very orderly, according to the Parthians. The idiot followed a guide who ended up leading him right into the hands of the enemy. It was like shooting ducks in a pickly barrel. The Romans never had a chance. Then when Crassus son lost his head, it really hit the fans. This is one of those battles that the Romans definetely did not like to brag about. It would be like the United States bragging about the Vietnam War. Not a good thing. The problem with Crassus was his rich arrogance. He believed because he had money, that he could be victorious in battle. If I remember correctly, Caesar was very hurt by having to give up a couple legions. But then again, Crassus was jealous of the victories of Pompey and Caesar. He felt he had to make a name for himself. To answer your question, I doubt there really was a battle order. Every time the Romans would advcance, the Parthians would feign a retreat, and shoot over their shoulders. The Romans steadily died of thirst and arrows. When there were few left, I imagine the Parthians either sold them into slavery, or murdered them as a reminder to Rome.

[Dangun]

There are no surviving records of names for Crassus' legions. Some of the legionaries may have come from Gaul with Publius Crassus when he transferred from Caesar to his father's command, but I can't even recall any ancient sources mentioning where Crassus even recruited the others.

 

If the legions had been transferred, rather than newly raised, I would have thought that the transferred legion would disappear from the sources and therefore later identifiable as a legion transferred to Crassus in Syria.

[caldrail]

He believed because he had money, that he could be victorious in battle

An odd thing to say. The nature of the Roman nobility was that military experience was essential for political success, something that was traditional for senior romans, and thus his wealth was less to do with his command than perhaps wishing to gain kudos by conquest, especially since he would probably have to invest his own money in the legion with no return unless booty was won from the enemy.

[Melvadius]

There are no surviving records of names for Crassus' legions. Some of the legionaries may have come from Gaul with Publius Crassus when he transferred from Caesar to his father's command, but I can't even recall any ancient sources mentioning where Crassus even recruited the others.

 

If the legions had been transferred, rather than newly raised, I would have thought that the transferred legion would disappear from the sources and therefore later identifiable as a legion transferred to Crassus in Syria.

 

I am no expert in the period but I suspect the key is in Pompeius commenting above that in the Republican period numbering system isn't well understood.

 

It was a period of some flux between the much earlier Republican period practice when legions were formed into consular armies but only enlisted for a single campaigning season and IIRC assigned based on either the Consuls seniority or where they were going to campaign.

 

By the late Republican period this system had been mainly superceded with legions being enlisted for longer campaigning period often over several years so even though the first four legions were numbered and still nominally under the control of the consuls the total number of legions had vastly increased and was subject to some fluctuation.

 

Legion numbers were used and re-used throughout this period but we do not necessarily know when particular legions were formed or disbanded. This is particularly the case since some sources only refer to armies being formed of a stated total of neither named nor numbered cohorts rather than legions. When the Civil War finally broke out the situation became even more confused with the competing generals raising several legions with the same number.

 

It is even possible that in the late Republican period IF permission had been granted to raise legions locally rather than in Rome that some numbers may even have been accidently duplicated so which particular legions served with Crassus remains on current evidence uncertain.

[Pompieus]

The legions of the Republic did not have the organizational continuity, permanent numbers and cognomen they had later under the Principate. The legions were formally reconstituted each winter with new tribunes, a new first centurion and probably a new numeral. We know from Livy that the Republican legions did have numerals (he mentions quite a few) and that numbers I-IV were reserved for the consuls and that proconsuls et al avoided using them. Nobody has worked out a system that explains the numerals of the other legions mentioned in the evidence (if there even was a system).

 

This was in the process of changing in the mid first century BCE due to the extended commands of Lucullus, Pompey, Caesar et al. Caesars legions retained their numerals throughout the Gallic and Civil Wars, were re-constituted by Octavian and survived into the Principate and empire. The "Fimbrians" and the other legions under Lucullus and Pompey may have maintained their organization and numerals until disbanded in 63/62 BCE but there is no evidence.

 

Crassus commanded 7 or possibly 8 legions. 2 had been left in Syria by Pompey in 63/62 BCE, and Gabinius brought replacements and possibly 2 new legions out as proconsul in 57 BCE. Crassus raised troops under the lex Trebonia that gave him the Syrian command, so he brought 3-6 newly recruited legions with him in 54 BCE. He crossed the Euphrates with 7 legions (possibly leaving one to garrison Syria). He left 14 cohorts (2 from each legion) to garrison cities in Mesopotamia and invaded Parthia with 56 cohorts including veterans recruited by Pompey and Gabinius as well as his own recruits. The survivors of Carrhae plus the troops left in Syria were organized into 2 legions by Cassius.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Pompieus