The Levy of the Annual Regular Legio

[Julius Ratus]

Here's my take on the issue.

 

The difference between a Roman military formation and a modern one, is how they are used. A modern army requires a pyramidal structure, because of how it operates. The parts of the whole (platoons, companies, battalions, etc.) must be able to operate independently while maintaining command and control of the whole force. This is accomplished by having each unit commanded by an officer who is in full command of his unit, but is subordinate to other officers from the larger units. A Captain commands his unit, but is subordinate to the Major or Lieutenant Colonel of the Battalion.

 

A Roman formation fought in a battle line. The units were not independent, in fact, the line only operated correctly if all the units fought together as one. To accomplish this, you need an overall commander, and subordinates who make sure everything is working properly, not necessarily commanding.

 

Now, if you want to compare the Legion to another force, you must find one that fought in a similar style. Here I make my caveats. I like comparisons because they help us better understand what we are looking at, but a comparison can never be perfect. You are always comparing two different things.

 

For the purpose of comparing the Legion to a more modern unit, I will use a typical British Regiment from the Napoleonic Era. My reasons for picking this unit is because it shares some similarities with a Roman Legionary formation, and because I understand it well enough that I can aspire to some degree of accuracy. (Caveat: The Regiment and the Legion deployed differently, with the Regiment being slip up into one or more battalions, which were the actual fighting unit and were deployed separately. For the sake of my comparison I will be describing a Regiment consisting of only one battalion.)

 

At the top of the Battalion you have a Lieutenant Colonel (or a full Colonel in the case of a single Battalion Regiment). He correlates to the Legionary Consul, Proconsul, Legate, etc. This is the top guy in the formation. Below him are the Military Tribunes (and various other officers), and the Majors, in the Regiment. These officers do not command regular units, they can command collections of Companies/Centuriae but are not regular commanders. They are the Colonel

[Gaius Octavius]

My, I am sure faulty understanding of matters military, goes this way: Any unit which may operate independently, has a commander, be he sergeant, colonel, optio, decurio, or tribune. Certainly an alae operated 'away from', or independently from a cohort or legion. Cohorts need not have been with the rest of their legion to engage in battle. Indeed, cohorts need not have been an integral part of any legion. There were independent cohorts. Batavians in England. The Italian allies were organized into cohorts and attached to legions. Insofar as the 'pyramid' is concerned, the various units were supposed to do as the overall commander bid. No one was supposed to run around doing as he pleased. A cohort could be detached from the main battle line to flank the enemy for an example. Unit strengths varied within the legion, the legions, and the times. Once there were maniples; then there were none.

 

When one thinks of the American order of battle, it has changed from time to time. After WWII, the Atomic Division came into vogue. Once there were 3-5 squads to a platoon; 3-5 platoons to a company; 3-5 companies to a battalion, etc. Not all infantry, but logistics, intelligence, and headquarters, and not all of the same strength. A 1st or 2nd lieutenant commanded a platoon. A 1st Lt. or Capt., a company. A Major was/is generally a staff officer, but may command a battalion or a company. It goes this way all the way to the top. Since lieutenants and captains have a penchant for being whacked in battle, a corporal could, in theory, command a division. The Romans may have been more rigid. Gen Eisenhower (if my memory serves) was a Regular Army Major at the time he was commanding allied forces on D-Day. That distinction is for another day. So are regimental combat teams, brigades, reserves and corps.

 

Faustus, where are you? Are you goldbricking again? (Insider joke.)

Edited April 28, 2008 by Gaius Octavius

[caldrail]

The great dangers of reconstructing career patterns primarily from epigraphy are that we impose an artificial order on the evidence or force it to conform to our own preconceptions of what an army should be like. It was no coincidence that the german scholars who pioneered the reconstruction of the roman army's rank structure in the late 19th century created an image of a force that was remarkably similar to the german armies of their own day, especially in the great variety of NCO ranks. Later, british scholars were inclined to see similarities to british arms...

...We need to be both very careful of imposing anachronistic cultural assumptions on the romans and aware that there are many things which our evidence cannot tell us.

The Complete Roman Army Adrian Goldsworthy

 

This information applies to the pre-marian legionary levy.

 

The Levy

 

Service in the legions was the right and duty of the Adsidui, the body of citizenry owning property of at least 400 denarii in value and so able to support themselves financially. A census was held every five years, in which the Adsidui were registered in tribes and distributed into five classes according to wealth. The census concluded with a religious ceremony of purification, known as the 'lustration' lustratio. The proletarii, citizens whose property fell below the minim levy for inclusion in the census classes were not normally required to serve in the legions during this period, other then in times of dire emergency. Roman males became eligible for military service during their 17th year, and were only required to perform military service as iuniores, until their 46th year. In times of emergency, such as the mobilisation of 170BC for the Third Macedonian War, the oath could be administered to the seniores up to their 50th year. Normally citizens were required to perform six years of service continuously in the same legion, or sometimes in seperate levies. They could serve as long as 16 years in the infantry, or 10 in the cavalry, and even longer as a volunteer. When an army was levied, the citizens would meet in a dilectus or 'choosing', at which they were allocated to the various legions. Infantry were paid one third of a denarius daily, cavalry a full denarius, and from this deductions were made for food and equipment.

 

The Legion

 

...Each legion had six tribunes attached to it. Service as a tribune brought great honour, and even ex-consuls would serve as tribunes. Normally the six tribunes would divide themselves into three pairs, each pair taking it in turn to command a legion for two months (the pair may have taken it in turns to command on alternate days). In the imperial period the legion was commanded by a legatus. Polybius does not refer to military legati[/i]; they became incrreasingly common as the 2nd century BC drew on, though still not as legionary commanders...[/i]

 

Republican Roman Army 200-104 BC Nick Sekunda & Angus McBride

 

Further information is available about the somewhat longwinded process of selection for a levy of this period -

 

By this time the Roman army in most years consisted of four legions, divided into two armies, each commanded by a consul. There were twenty four military tribunes, six to each legion...

 

...Polybius also describes a most elaborate method of appointing military tribunes and selecting the men, which as Parker says, "resembled picking up sides for a game". The four tribunes named first are posted to the first legion, the next three to the second, the following four to the third, and the remaining three to the fourth. After the distribution and posting of officers has been made so that each legion has the same number, those of each legion take their seats in seperate groups, and they draw lots for the tribes, and summon them individually in order of the draw. From each tribe they first select four young men or more or less the same age and build. When these are brought forward the officers of the first legion have the first choice, the second the second choice, those of the tird the next choice, and those of the fourth take the last. Another batch of four is brought forward, and this time the officers of the second legion have the first choice and so on, those of the first being last to choose....

 

...By continuing in this way to give each legion the first choice in turn, each gets men of the same quality.

The Roman World John Wacher

 

The rigmarole concerned with the levy is astonishing. Each man in the legion, some 4200 men strong (or even 5000 in times of emergency) is brought forward to swear an oath to obey orders. Then the legions are dismissed with orders to present themselves at a certain time and place unarmed, at which point the division between velites, hastatii, principes, and triarii is formalised.

 

Polybius proceeds to describe the system of mobilisation; each consul appoints a seperate meeting place, for he had his own share of the allies and two roman legions. The allies are commanded by officers appointed by the consuls, who are called praefectorii sociorum...

The Roman World John Wacher

 

The 'army of four legions' needs to considered in the light of their requirements, not our modern day experience. Whilst there is little comparison between modern times and the post-marian professional army, there is even less for the citizen levy described by Polybius.

 

Firstly, the roman army of this time did not actually exist as a permanent organisation. It was levied every year or at the start of a campaign, and whilst four legions were traditional in this period, this was not a necessarily mandatory.organisation, which might only last for one campaign season of six months anyway. A Praetor for instance would be given command of a single legion as an army commander if smaller forces were needed. Also, significantly, there were several occaisions when the minimum property qualification was reduced deliberately. The size of the armies quoted by Polybius is therefore misleading, because Rome at this time rarely needed anything larger. It was a manifestation of roman conservatism rather than strict ruling.

 

Second, the roman armies described are an evolution of the warband, the 'assembly of armed men', a citizens army as opposed to a professional standing force. Notice how the tribunes share command - no man is held to be permanently in charge- a very republican sentiment. Officers are selected before the men, and none hold their positions permanently - including the consuls, rulers of Rome, who are elected annually.

 

Thirdly, the legatii were not permanent army commanders until the reforms of Augustus, and during the period described by Polybius would appear to have functioned as executive officers of some kind.

 

Fourthly, notice the solemnity and ritual involved in assembling the troops. My own feeling is that the dilectus must have taken at least a minute, possibly more, to select between each group of four candidates. A group of similar men had to be found, ordered forward, and then chosen by the tribunes. Even allowing for the boredom of the event as it wore on, it could easily have taken an entire day from sun-up to sun-down, considering that the cavalry also needed allocating and the extraordinarii too (Those who would fight in the center of the line). There's no mention of refreshment either. Since roman tradition was so important, one wonders if this ritual was a limiting factor on the size of the consular armies and what would happen if time was an issue or if larger forces were desperately needed. Polybius is therefore describing an ideal event, rather than an exact procedure that occured every single time.

Edited April 29, 2008 by caldrail

[roman wargamer]

Sorry, but all of this is complete rubbish. The romans did not organise themselves in this manner. They did not have an army. There was no coherent and formal organisation of their fighting forces as we expect today. Every legion was autonomous, its leader owing loyalty to either the senate or the emperor (or arguably, themselves sometimes).

 

While I agree that there was a sort of disconnect from legion to legion (at least prior to the late Republic and early Principate), there was still some uniformity in rank, responsibility and command structure. I do think RW is trying too hard to fit modern structures and customs into their Roman counterparts, but I did just want to add this slight clarification for the casual passerby:

 

A centurion was a centurion regardless of which legion he served. Each legion had up to 59 of them and each one carried their own rank and status. In theory, an individual Primus Pilus of Legion I would have held the same social status and authority as his counterpart in Legion II, but the two were not necessarily interchangeable the way that two different Colonel's would be in a modern army. In a modern army, a Colonel held that rank and authority to those below him regardless of his assignment, whereas in the Roman legion, each officer held that rank for soldiers within that legion. While a Centurion was a Centurion regardless of legion, a Centurion in Legio I had no command authority over legionaries in Legio II.

 

here is my reply on centurion:

 

when a centurion come tp his retirement time, he can;

 

1. retire, and his status as military will be dis-solved and return to civilian life

2. or upon request of the legatus, extend his tour of duty with privelege

 

but when a new legio is commission, he can apply again on the same rank

 

or while on active duty, he could be transfered on other legio,

but subject to the appointment of new legatus legiones for his command authority.

[roman wargamer]

Here's my take on the issue.

 

The difference between a Roman military formation and a modern one, is how they are used. A modern army requires a pyramidal structure, because of how it operates. The parts of the whole (platoons, companies, battalions, etc.) must be able to operate independently while maintaining command and control of the whole force. This is accomplished by having each unit commanded by an officer who is in full command of his unit, but is subordinate to other officers from the larger units. A Captain commands his unit, but is subordinate to the Major or Lieutenant Colonel of the Battalion.

 

While my analogy is far from perfect, I hope it makes understanding the Romans

[Julius Ratus]

The building blocks of the Regiment are the companies, of which there were 10. Likewise with the Roman legion, there were 10 Centuriae in the Legion. The commanders of these formations were the Captains, or the Centurions in the case of the Romans.

 

I just caught this. I haven't edited my post so you all can laugh at me being a moron. I was trying to work and write. Unfortunately, I did neither well yesterday.

 

As RW pointed out, a Cohort was six Centuriae, and a Legion is 10 Cohorts. Mea Culpa.

 

I think my analogy can be salvaged, by comparing the Legion to a Brigade (which RW has already done). Like a Napoleonic Brigade, a Roman Legion is made up of several independant/semi-independant units: Battalions or Cohorts.

 

Once again, mea culpa.

[Julius Ratus]

military tribunes is the son of leading plebians who have office holding ancestor in the comitia tributa.

 

Do you have a source for this definition? It sounds like you may be confusing the Tribunus Plebis with the Tribunus Militum. The Tribune of the Plebs was a political rank, not military.

 

The Military Tribunes (and the later Tribuni Angusticalii and Laticlavii) were subordinates to the commander of the Legion.

 

My information is from Wikipedia (sorry, I'm at work), but I think that other sources will back the given definaition as well.

[Gaius Octavius]

Was there ever an 11th century to a cohort, i.e., the 1st cohort?

 

Help me out here. If there weren't a command structure, how could a legion march anywhere, let alone do battle? Who'd tell the rear guard and flankers where to go?

[Julius Ratus]

Was there ever an 11th century to a cohort, i.e., the 1st cohort?

 

To the best of my knolledge, no. You are refering to there being a seperate unit for the command personel, aren't you? The Officers, Cavalry, and miscellaneous toops were not part of the century-cohort structure. They were parts of the Legion as a whole.

 

Help me out here. If there weren't a command structure, how could a legion march anywhere, let alone do battle? Who'd tell the rear guard and flankers where to go?

 

There was a command structure. There were officers. The Consul/Legate/Tribune with Consular Powers would give the orders, as would the junior officers and centurions, and so forth.

[caldrail]

Help me out here. If there weren't a command structure, how could a legion march anywhere, let alone do battle? Who'd tell the rear guard and flankers where to go?

 

]There was a command structure. There were officers. The Consul/Legate/Tribune with Consular Powers would give the orders, as would the junior officers and centurions, and so forth.

 

You're thinking in modern terms. The modern armies do not concentrate their forces any more than they have to - its dangerous to have too many soldiers in one place and therefore a chain of command is absolutely vital to conduct their business. For the romans, it was the opposite, it was very beneficial to have as many of your troops in one place as possible. This meant it was easier to command directly, and indeed, the romans preferred to do so. After all, the cohort developed for this very reason, to cut the number of lesser ranks.

 

The army commander - a consul or praetor - orders his men where to march and form up. The tribune of the day ensures his legion conforms. Centurions have a part to play in manoevering but remember command was made by trumpet as well, and that was very direct - there was no need to issue orders down a complex pyramid structure. In any case, when the fighting started, the centurion was leading by example at the front right in the thick of it, to inspire his men, and thus was too busy to pass down commands.

 

a legion is almost the same size of brigade.

I think my analogy can be salvaged, by comparing the Legion to a Brigade (which RW has already done). Like a Napoleonic Brigade, a Roman Legion is made up of several independant/semi-independant units: Battalions or Cohorts.

There's no comparison. So what if a brigade is roughly the same size? They're completely different formations for different era's for different purposes. A brigade exists to provide local control and support. There was no such structure in the roman armies and no requirement for one. Since a brigade exists to control units in a local area, it has no comparison to a legion, a self contained military division, which operates in one place together.

 

NO! the senate have many many consul that run the government, the legions and the province.

I missed this gem earlier. Just for you RW, here's some definitions of a consul.

 

Chief roman magistrate during the republican era. Two consuls were elected by the senate every year

Imperial Rome Second Edition C J Carella

 

The years two counsul's were the senior elected magistrates of the roman republic, and held comman in important campaigns. Sometimes the senate extended their power after their year in office, in which case they were known as proconsuls.

Roman Warfare Adrian Goldsworthy

 

The number of lesser offices changed with time, but Rome always had two serving consuls. Though the office was originally restricted to the patricians, plebian aristocrats later succeeded in having the consulship shared between the two orders, so that there was often one patrician and one plebian consul. Consuls were legislators and generals. Originally they commanded Romes principal armies, but as time went on they tended to remain in Rome and spend their consular year in civil activities, afterwards commanding abroad as procinsuls.

Chronicle of the Roman Republic Philip Matyszak

Edited April 30, 2008 by caldrail

[Gaius Octavius]

I think that some of us are saying the same thing using different words. I'll try to explain myself from the very top. The political leaders set the overall political goal. The C-in-C, and his staff, set the strategy. The local commanders, and their staffs, the tactics. I think that the reason modern commentators try to equate ranks, is to compare the size, and perhaps the purpose of a unit. A modern regiment is approximately the size of a legion, thus a colonel. Aside from general, colonel, and captain, I don't believe that other officer ranks are compared. Was a decurio a sergeant or a lieutenant? Save for such as Caesar and Patton, (on occasion), generals do not lead from the front lines. Roman 'war councils' often included centurions; captains are not. Modern battles may last for months; ancient ones, usually, for a few hours. If a local unit is/was hard pressed, an adjacent unit, if it is/was able to, could try to ameliorate affairs on its own initiative.

 

Field Marshall Vice-Count Montgomery.

Edited April 30, 2008 by Gaius Octavius

[M. Porcius Cato]

Chief roman magistrate during the republican era. Two consuls were elected by the senate every year

 

Nonsense. During most of republican history (i.e., with the exception of the very early republic), consuls were elected by the Comitia Centuriata, not by the senate.

[caldrail]

Chief roman magistrate during the republican era. Two consuls were elected by the senate every year

 

Nonsense. During most of republican history (i.e., with the exception of the very early republic), consuls were elected by the Comitia Centuriata, not by the senate.

 

Thats perfectly fine with me. Please take it up with the author concerned.

 

I think that the reason modern commentators try to equate ranks, is to compare the size, and perhaps the purpose of a unit.

No it isn't. The modern system is well known to us, very familiar, and therefore warm and comfortable. The roman system is different and requires some consideration, its unfamiliar to us. The modern system is built on the regimental system, the roman system is based on the warband. The fact two formations two thousand years apart have roughly the same size is neither here nor there.

 

A modern regiment is approximately the size of a legion, thus a colonel.

The colonel is a modern rank with a defined role. He is the commander of a regiment. The romans didn't use the regimental system (though I admit they came very close to one) and therefore the legionary commander was not a colonel. The modern colonel does not timeshare his command with his peers as happened in early and mid republican Rome.

 

Was a decurio a sergeant or a lieutenant?

No, he was a decurio. A sergeant is a rank derived from medieval horsemen of lowly status, it has no connection with legionary organisation, nor does his authority, status, and responsibility equate to the sergeant.

 

Save for such as Caesar and Patton, (on occasion), generals do not lead from the front lines.

The roman tradition is that they did - now bear with me on this. In the original roman society, before the eternal city was actually founded, men led warbands on raids or very rare battles. This tradition led to roman civic leaders taking command of their military. Thus we see consuls, elected politicians, given authority by virtue of their job to command two legions. Praetors, being lesser magistrates, were only allowed to command one. Now as armies grow larger and more sophisticated, it becomes necessary to hang back and command from a position where visibility and communication are expected to be at their best. You might argue generals don't like getting involved in the sharp end, but this simply isn't so in roman times. The great majority of roman generals (I shouldn't really use that word ) were willing to fight if it became necessary - that was the roman way - that personal courage was an example to your lessers, a hangover from the warband of older times. However, the roman status system also meant that these commanders wouldn't usually fight alongside the men because they were not common soldiers.

 

If a local unit is/was hard pressed, an adjacent unit, if it is/was able to, could try to ameliorate affairs on its own initiative.

This was the beauty of the roman system - it allowed this initiative and flexibility on the field but it also required an understanding between commanders and subordinate centurions. Cannae is the case in point. It must have been frighteningly obvious to the centurions on the wings of the roman advance that they were going in the deep end - but did they react? No, because there operational orders were to advance as one, to steamroller the carthaginians back into the sea. This is the flip side of the roman system, the disadvantage, in that the commanders set the operational orders before the battle began, and that precise ordering of individual cohorts was difficult. Centuries would not be re-ordered at all.

Edited May 1, 2008 by caldrail

[roman wargamer]

military tribunes is the son of leading plebians who have office holding ancestor in the comitia tributa.

It sounds like you may be confusing the

Tribunus Plebis with the Tribunus Militum. The Tribune of the Plebs was a political rank, not military.

the comitia tributa is different to the Tribunus Plebis with the Tribunus Militum.

you are talking about.

 

xxxxxx

The Military Tribunes (and the later Tribuni Angusticalii and Laticlavii)

were subordinates to the commander of the Legion.

a legio have military tribune or the council of war.

a althought some position and function originated to the tribune...

it is now use as first ( in later time ) assignment to the son's of the patrician.

 

a patrician can never be a tribune and in the consilium plebis.

as a plebis can become a consul but not a patrician.

[roman wargamer]

a short story of the consulship.

 

at the beginning Rome have king... the imperium belong to him, until he die.

the patrician is the senate or advisor to the king.

and plebians was the general and commander of the troops.

 

when the king was depose and the republic was founded; who will be king-leader?

 

to prevent tyrant to hold power for life.

 

they created two chief consul co-existing with limited term and who hold the imperium.

but neither of the two can force the other to act but either of the two can make the other not to act.

 

when in time of national emergency, a problem can arise.

so the dictator was created.

 

at the later period... Rome become geo-political power... military imperium is no longer absolute but limited.

having many province they also created limited consulship both in power and imperium.

 

who will now be the king-leader? of the state of Rome.

 

the lectors who have potestas but no imperium.

 

the first meaning of consul was now very varied in the late republic.

 

______________________________________________________________________________

 

the Roman Cavalry

 

The junior heir and sons of the aristrocacy of the leading patrician and plebians sent letter to petition.

 

a militiae petitor was sent to the comitia.

 

the stage for cavalry recruitment begin at this way.

Edited May 10, 2008 by roman wargamer