03-22-2013, 05:03 PM
So, what you are practically asking is what the numbers given in the sources usually mean?
If this is the question, then in the numbers given in the sources are all fighting men, officers and other military personnel which played a role in the combat itself, essentially all enlisted men. Often we have mentions as to the existence and number of non-combatabts, attendants, drivers, craftsmen etc and these are usually given either vaguely or, less often, in numbers. Rarely, especially in the case of barbarian tribal masses, we are given numbers that clearly -and I mean here stated by the text, not because of common sense- state the sum of the tribe's population/casualties etc.
So, normally, when you read of a Roman consul leading an army of 20,000 foot and 1,500 horse, these are usually all fighting men, enlisted in the legions -sometimes, the texts usually make it clear, allied auxiliaries could be included in numbers given in this manner-, so apart from them there would be a great number of attendants and camp-followers too.
If this is the question, then in the numbers given in the sources are all fighting men, officers and other military personnel which played a role in the combat itself, essentially all enlisted men. Often we have mentions as to the existence and number of non-combatabts, attendants, drivers, craftsmen etc and these are usually given either vaguely or, less often, in numbers. Rarely, especially in the case of barbarian tribal masses, we are given numbers that clearly -and I mean here stated by the text, not because of common sense- state the sum of the tribe's population/casualties etc.
So, normally, when you read of a Roman consul leading an army of 20,000 foot and 1,500 horse, these are usually all fighting men, enlisted in the legions -sometimes, the texts usually make it clear, allied auxiliaries could be included in numbers given in this manner-, so apart from them there would be a great number of attendants and camp-followers too.
