"The cohorts before the reforms of Marius ..." Topic
20 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ancients Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestAncients
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleRemember back in 2005, when I promised pictures of those Sumerian chariot stands in 6mm?
Featured Workbench ArticleGenerating portraits using Deep Dream Generator.
Featured Profile ArticleGet these inexpensive dinos while you can.
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Paskal | 14 Jan 2020 9:16 a.m. PST |
The cohorts before their regularization by the reforms of Marius … The meaning of the Latin word cohors is uncertain (Keppie 235 n.7). But the fist mention of a cohors Romana comes in 212 BC (Livy 25.39.1; Front. 2.6.2), and Bell (415) has suggested that the elder Scipios introduced it. Then while dealing with the defeat of Hasdubal, son of Gisco in 206 BC at the battle of Ilipa, by Publius Scipio, Polybius describes ad hoc formations of the Roman army which are nothing but cohorts. Whatever its origins, the cohort does not seem to go far back into the 3rd century, and it has been suggested that in the early stages of its development the cohort consisted of three maniples of any of the ordine, ie three maniples of hastati or of principes, as well as the later pattern of one maniple from each of the three ordines (Rawson 19 n. 20). If each cohort consisted of one maniple of triarii, numbering theoretically 60 men, one of principes, numbering theoretically 120 men, one of hastati, numbering also theoretically 120 men, more theoretically 120 velites, on how many ranks did they fight? Theoretically the triarii fought on 3 rows and the principes and hastati on 6 rows … The cohort could then (maybe I don't know …) fight on 5 rows of 60 men? The first two rows being constituted by the hastati, the third and fourth rows by the principes and the fifth by the triarii … Yes, but it has been suggested that in the early stages of its development, the cohort was composed of three manipulations of any order, that is to say three manipulations of hastati or principes or triarii, very much when the cohorts of triarii had half the ranks of those of hastati or principes does this work except that the tenth maniples of hastati, principles and triarii are found alone and cannot form a tenth cohort because for this, it would have taken 12 maniples of hastati, principles and triarii in a legio … Paskal |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 14 Jan 2020 11:38 a.m. PST |
A maniple of 60 triarii would in fact be a century, so the organisation would be rather confusing for the Romans themselves at the time. |
Martian Root Canal | 14 Jan 2020 12:00 p.m. PST |
Livy, writing long after 212 BC, is relying on earlier sources at best. His writing is full of anachronisms. Polybius uses maniple and cohort pretty freely. (See The Republican Roman Army by Sage, p.199). Not sure I'd take his narrative as 'precise'. So we know what Marius reformed, but not much before that with any certainty. |
Paskal | 15 Jan 2020 12:46 a.m. PST |
Yes, but it has been suggested that in the early stages of its development, the cohort was made up of three maniples of any order, i.e. three maniples of hastati or principes or triarii. Therefore, there would have needed 12 hastati, principes and triarii in a legio … The question is how to form a legion with 10 cohorts, each consisting of 3 identical maniples when there were only 10 maniples of each type in a legion? |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 15 Jan 2020 2:33 a.m. PST |
Paskal you might find this of interest: link Although I have questions about the battle array – whether files or ranks were employed, Steven James makes a persausive argument that Polybius was mistaken about Roman military organisation and that Livy (who may possibly have had Roman military experience)is right. |
Paskal | 16 Jan 2020 12:55 a.m. PST |
@ MichaelCollinsHimself : Thank you, In my opinion the cohort made up with three maniples of any order, i.e. three maniples of hastati or principles or triarii have never existed, for the reasons explained above. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 16 Jan 2020 8:09 a.m. PST |
Livy also mentions whole detachments of Hastati performing separate missions e.g. 33.1: "The hastati of the legion, numbering 2000 men, were ordered to follow him at a distance of one mile. About half-way he was met by Antiphilus, the captain-general of the Boeotians; the population of the city were on the walls, anxiously watching the approach of the Roman general and the king. They saw few arms and few soldiers with them, the hastati, who were following a mile behind, were hidden by the windings of the road and the undulating nature of the terrain. As he came nearer to the city he slackened his pace, as though he were saluting the crowds who had come out to meet him, but really to allow the hastati to catch him up." 2,000 Hastati would be 1,800 rounded up – this would appear to support Steven James` view that the hastati of a legion numbered 1,800 men in 30 centuries. Livy does not describe these as being in five cohorts. |
Paskal | 17 Jan 2020 5:40 a.m. PST |
Why in 5 cohorts? If a manipular legion wants to form in cohorts it is all its heavy infantry which does it and that gives 10 cohorts. These cohorts are each of 1 maniple of hastatii, 1 maniple of principles and 1 maniple of triarii there are no other solutions, these cohort could then (maybe I don't know…) fight on 5 rows of 60 men , the first two rows being constituted by the hastati, the third and fourth rows by the principles and the fifth by the triarii… It has been suggested that in the early stages of its development, the cohort was composed of three maniples of the same type f infantry, that is to say three maniples of hastati or principes or triarii, impssible because the cohorts of triarii had half the number of men of those of hastati or principes and that the tenth maniples of hastati, principles and triarii are found alone and cannot form a tenth cohort because for this, it would have taken 12 maniples of hastati, principles and triarii in a legio … Paskal |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 17 Jan 2020 7:46 a.m. PST |
My apologies, I`m sorry, but I found it difficult to understand what you meant when you said: "In my opinion the cohort made up with three maniples of any order, i.e. three maniples of hastati or principles or triarii have never existed, for the reasons explained above." I have no problem with cohorts being a mixed infantry formation. I simply wanted to point out that in practice, detachments were made of single troop-types and in the example that I gave the troops were NOT described as being in cohorts and so therefore I was supporting what you were saying. What I still find difficult to understand is why the Romans would chose to make its basic tactical unit, (the century) vary so much, when it was intended to operate alongside other centuries within the larger grand-tactical formation, the legion? I have always thought that in military systems, grand-tactics are an extension to minor tactics – the principles of manoeuvre; the small tactical building-blocks are repeated at higher levels in large formations. Besides my suspicion of an irregular military doctrine here, don`t you think that the triarii formation would be rather too thin to be really effective in practice? |
Paskal | 18 Jan 2020 7:08 a.m. PST |
It has been suggested that in the early stages of its development,the cohort was composed of three maniples of the same type of infantry, that is to say three maniples of hastati or three maniples of principes or three maniples of triarii, impossible in my opinion for a cohort made up of three identical maniples for the following reason: As there were only 10 maniples of hastati or of principles or of triarii in a line, we could only make 3 cohorts per line and in this case what became the tenth maniple of each line… So they were made up of 1 maniple of each line – Hastati- Principles and Triarii and the cohort could only fight on 5 rows of 60 men ! The first two rows being constituted by the hastati, the third and fourth rows by the principes and the fifth by the triarii … Me neither, I have no problem with the cohorts being a mixed infantry formation. Why did the Romans choose to change their basic tactical unit (the maniple not the centuria !), when it was supposed to work alongside other maniples within the largest tactical formation, the legion? Because the cohort legion has greater tactical flexibility than the manipular legion. The triarii formation was not too thin to be really effective in practice, otherwise the Romans would not have used it. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 19 Jan 2020 4:00 a.m. PST |
I did not ask why they changed the system, I was asking why the Romans in the republican period would have had tactical units of different sizes (it is suggested that triari maniples had only 60 men). If thin lines of triarii were considered adequate against barbarian warbands, why were they replaced (and the hastati too) by a standardised heavy infantryman with missile capability in the reforms attributed to Marius? The Cimbrian war was something of a real test for the Romans and they needed to change their infantry tactics, or else face the prospect of suffering more defeats like the battle of Arausio. |
Paskal | 19 Jan 2020 8:04 a.m. PST |
The reforms of Marius want an army with agreater tactical flexibility than the manipular legion. The same equipment, organization and type of combat,for everyone. This is also what causes the disappearance of velites and equites, because as regards light infantry and cavalry, the Romans were not the best, their specialty was heavy infantry. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 20 Jan 2020 6:23 a.m. PST |
Many people say that the cohort system provided more tactical flexiblity. I see it from another viewpoint. If you take lots of small tactical units (those maniples and centuries) and combine them into a larger cohort mass do you really get more flexibilty? Or is the massing of troops really being done to prevent those small tactical sub-units being overwhelmed? No, I don`t think tactical flexiblity was the aim. After the reforms we still have the same sub-units within the cohort: centuries (prior and posterior) and maniples are still there – they are what the larger formation consist of, but cohorts are larger and more able to resist massed and determined attacks. The cohort is about strength of the larger formation, not the versatility of the soldiers tactics. |
custosarmorum | 20 Jan 2020 2:18 p.m. PST |
The first archaeological evidence for cohorts I am aware of is from Numantia in Spain. By ca. 140 BC there are barracks blocks there in the Roman siege camps that show a transition from maniples to cohorts. They argument goes that the cohort provided greater staying power than the maniples when fighting the Celtiberians, especially for detachments used in the sieges and scattered fighting in Spain. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 21 Jan 2020 2:51 a.m. PST |
Gents, I think that the essence of it was that the distance between the centuries was closed and the cohort was rotated through 90 degrees to become a sub-unit of line or lines (acies) …the cohort before the reforms was a deep formation, and it became more of a linear one. Yes, then the command had more staying power as standardised infantry but the legion/army had an easier option to increase its depth – it simply formed more lines. The javelin-armed legionary still fought in the same way, but Roman armies could then deploy with more width and when fighting large bodies of enemy troops, being flanked by an emeny was less of a danger. Minor tactics must have remained pretty constant; as I said earlier, we still have troops organised at the lower tactical levels in centuries and maniples. Could you provide a reference for that Spanish evidence please custosarmorum ? |
Paskal | 21 Jan 2020 3:05 a.m. PST |
@ MichaelCollinsHimself: Many people say that the cohort system has provided more tactical flexibility, is what I think. You write "If you take lots of small tactical units (those maniples and centuries) and combine them into a larger cohort mass do you really get more flexibilty ?," yes that's what happened when the second centuries of each maniples clogged the intertices between each first maniples, because one obtained more flexibility when there were less units to order and the grouping of maniples also avoided which are submerged individually? So I think tactical flexibility was also the goal. Yes, after the reforms of Marius, we still have the same subunits within the cohort, but from then on they are administrative units. @ custosarmorum: The first archaeological evidence for cohorts I am aware of is from Numantia in Spain by ca. 140 BC? Among the Romans it is much older … The fist mention of a cohors Romana comes in 212 BC (Livy 25.39.1; Front. 2.6.2), and Bell (415) has suggested that the elder Scipios introduced it. And among the Samnites and other Italic peoples it was several centuries before. Besides the allied wings which flanked the Roman legions were organized in cohorts since their creations. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 21 Jan 2020 3:44 a.m. PST |
Maniples were more than administrative after the Marian reforms. See Caesar`s orders at the battle of the Sabis to the X legion (Bello Gallico 2.25) maniples are definitely referred to performing a tactical manoeuvre. |
custosarmorum | 21 Jan 2020 6:53 p.m. PST |
MichaelCollinsHimself, You can find a very complete overview of the evidence and its implications in Michael Dobson, The Army of the Roman Republic: the 2nd century BC, Polybius, and the Camps at Numantia, Spain , (Oxbow, 2008). Paskal: Please note I said archaeological, not literary, evidence which I find more concrete. Also, sadly for the Republic, we generally lack the documentary evidence of the empire like inscriptions and papyri, which have allowed for the reconstruction of the organization and Rangordnung Imperial period. I would also be careful not to conflate cohors as a generic term for a band (or a ship's crew even) with the very specific use in the Roman army. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 22 Jan 2020 4:27 a.m. PST |
|
Paskal | 23 Jan 2020 12:51 a.m. PST |
@ custosarmorum: I find concrete literary evidence when it gives dates and we lack of archaeological evidences. In terms of archaeological evidences, compare what Polybius says about the outfits of the Roman soldiers in his time with what the frize from the monument of Paul-Emile to Delphe shows for 168 BC. |
|