Prata Legionis

[Steve Kaye]

Hello Vindex,
I thought I'd give the sq. km. figures a shot afterall. Might be re-inventing the wheel but I couldn't find such a table anywhere.

And, please remember I'm parachuting myself into this arena from another discipline so might make some daft observations. Do correct my assumptions or make suggestions, especially about the horsey numbers.

Lots of sources for the numbers but prime is "THE LOGISTICS OF THE ROMAN ARMY AT WAR (264 B.C. - A.D. 235) JONATHAN P. ROTH."

Below is a jpeg of the spreadsheet table.

[img width=400]http://www.bandaarcgeophysics.co.uk/Boudica/logistics-legions-table.JPG[/img]

The spreadsheet xls can be downloaded from my website ...
http://www.bandaarcgeophysics.co.uk/Boud...-needs.xls


The xls is designed to be altered if others have better information - or just different preconceptions of figures required.

Change the figures on green background to alter the number of legions (5280men), ala (512) and/or auxs.(512). A set of notes setting out my reasons for the figures are included in the xls.

Changing the numbers of legions, ala etc. (in green) will flood through the calculations in the rest of the table.

Much could be said of my chosen assumptions but I'll limit myself to a few observations and explanations for now.

1) Increasing the legion/ala/aux numbers rapidly increases the grand total of sq km required. Quite easy to get to 400-500sq km!

2) The horse figures are based on the British Horse Society guidelines which, of course, relate to modern field practice. I suspect that the Romans had a more open field/pasture system, especially for the breeding horses. That is, the figures of sq km required for horses and mules are probably much too low. Same could be said for cattle.

3) Horse - 'near reserve' figure is a guess and set to 50% of 'on duty' horses. Used the same logic for mules.

4) Military families and locals - these are the largest figures in the table. They represent the families of soldiers, tradesmen, herdsmen, woodsmen etc., i.e. the total number of civilians supporting the soldiers in their fort and surrounding land. Figures and calculations based on medieval village/society where the number of acres required to support a family is typically 12-15. Can't find same for Romano-brits.

5) What is missing? Sheep, goats and sundry other animals.

6) Wood requirement - this makes my head ache! I've left it out. Can't calculate the figures and can't find them either (not surprised). Fact is that the amount of wood required for building, maintenance, cooking and heating would have been immense and would have increased the size of the land required by the fort.


Some numbers for scale:
1 legion, 1 ala, 1 Aux = 277.57sq km (16x16km)
1 legion, 2 ala, 2 aux = 336.35sq km (18x18km)
2 legion, 2 ala, 2 aux = 534.32sq km (23x23km)

Quite large areas required but, even so, these must be underestimates by quite some margin. As mentioned, the land required for the breeding stock of horse, mule and cattle would have been larger, plus, I've made no allowance for the quality of the land (how many animals it could support).

It seems that a legionary fort is a maw into which much of the local wealth fell. I imagine that the maw's gravitional pull rippled out far beyond it's area of control - this might be especially true for wood/charcoal.

Anyway, an interesting exercise. Can the figures be improved?

Regards, Steve Kaye

[Vindex]

Wow - thank you Steve!

That'll take some mind exercise...I'll get back to you! :wink:

(But quick thought is - I seem to recall Josephus mentioning the provision of wood for the seige at Mesada but I could also be totally wrong. :wink: )

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

No, your not he does.

[D B Campbell]

I seem to recall Josephus mentioning the provision of wood for the seige at Mesada but I could also be totally wrong.

He talks about how the building of siege-works devastates the area around a town (Jotapata: Bell. Jud. 3.161; Jerusalem: Bell. Jud. 6.374; I don't recall anything specific about Masada, though -- is there?).

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Nope, my apologies! Somehow I managed to miss the Masada
Reference (glare on laptop screen will be my excuse)
and was thinking of the Jerusalem reference!

[Vindex]

Well...close but no cigar :wink:

At least it was Josephus even if I can't spell Masada. :?

[D B Campbell]

... even if I can't spell Masada.

I know how to spell it. But my keyboard doesn't. :wink:

[Vindex]

... even if I can't spell Masada.

I know how to spell it. But my keyboard doesn't. :wink:

Have a cigar...

[Steve Kaye]

Masada, wood and all that - paper published 2010 below. I don't have a copy - can't justify $31.

Modeling the demands for wood by the inhabitants of Masada and for the Roman siege Original Research Article
Journal of Arid Environments, Volume 74, Issue 7, July 2010, Pages 777-785
S. Lev-Yadun, D.S. Lucas, M. Weinstein-Evron

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...6310000339

Abstract:
Abstract

Modeling the demands for wood, especially firewood, for the inhabitants of the unique desert fortress of Masada during the major period of its occupation (beginning about 150 B.C.E. and ending with its fall after the Roman siege in 73 C.E.) is based on the well-documented history of the site, of the number of inhabitants in each phase of occupation, and the current demand for firewood in traditional societies. The previously analyzed ancient botanical remains from Masada provide base-line data of the types of wood used. We have concluded that when the Roman siege began in C.E. 73, the vicinity of Masada would have been denuded of trees and shrubs as a result of ca. 225 years of occupation. Therefore, the Tamarix wood used to construct the upper parts of the Roman siege rampart was probably not local. The isotopic composition of the Tamarix beams probably indicates that they were imported from a different region, such as the more humid and cooler river banks east of the Dead Sea, rather than the result of climate change as previously proposed.

[Steve Kaye]

Ah! the Univ. of Haifa issued a more detailed press release on the paper referenced in the previous message.

http://newmedia-eng.haifa.ac.il/?p=5360

The Roman Legion that lay siege on Masada some 2,000 years ago was forced to use timber from other areas in the land of Israel for its weapons and encampments, and was not able to use local wood as earlier studies have proposed. This has been revealed in a new study conducted at the University of Haifa, refuting earlier suggestions that described the Judean Desert area as more humid in the times of the Second Temple.

Despite all the historic and archaeological evidence that has been revealed about the Roman siege on Masada, scholars are at difference over the large quantities of timber and firewood that were required for the Jewish fortress defenders on the mountain and for the Roman besiegers. A previous study by researchers from the Weizmann Institute of wooden remains found on the siege rampart showed that they originated from a more humid habitat, and assuming that the timber was local, claimed that this was proof of the Judean region being more humid some 2,000 years ago. The University of Haifa researchers maintain that the wood originated in a more humid region: not from the local habitat but brought from a more humid region to the foot of Masada by the well-organized Roman military supply unit.

The new study, conducted by Prof. Simcha Lev-Yadun of the University of Haifa’s Department of Biology and Environment at the University of Haifa-Oranim, Prof. Mina Weinstein-Evron of the Zinman Institute of Archaeology at the University of Haifa, and D. S. Lucas, a student from Ohio University, included botanic, archaeological and cultural examination and modeling to verify by means of comparison to parallel traditional societies, the uses of timber and firewood from the beginning of settlement at Masada, some 220 years before the siege, and until its fall.

First, the researchers examined the amount of wood that exists today in the Judean Desert and in the wadi deltas in the vicinity of Masada, and thereby were able to estimate the amount and types of wood that the desert could supply. Next, they calculated the amount of timber and firewood that would have been needed for the inhabitants of Masada, from 150 BCE, when it was a small fortress, through the Herodian period, when the fortress as we know it was constructed, and up to the siege, which ended in 73 CE. According to the researchers, in those times, timber was mostly used for construction, heating and cooking. Based on accepted evaluations of wood consumption for these purposes in traditional societies, on the conservatively estimated number of Masada inhabitants in each time period, the harsh climatic conditions in the desert and Masada’s topography, the researchers were able to conclude that by the time the Romans arrived at Masada and began their siege (73 CE), the entire area was void of timber and firewood, due to 2,220 years of massive exploitation of the immediate environment up to that point. The Romans would have had no choice but to import wood from other areas for their weapon machinery, ramparts and basic living requirements.

The researchers were able to construct a model of the Roman Legion’s timber utilization in various siege scenarios, and concluded that even if the Masada area had more than its normal availability of wood, it still would not have been sufficient for the Romans’ needs, so that in any event, they would have been forced to ensure a continuous supply of wood. As such, the researchers explained, the earlier claim that the region of Masada was more humid some 2,000 years ago, was in all probability not well established.

[D B Campbell]

Masada, wood and all that - paper published 2010 below. I don't have a copy - can't justify $31.

Save your 30 bucks. It's a highly technical (and speculative) discussion of likely timber use at Masada from pre-Herod the Great down to the Roman siege, based on a theoretical model for tree husbanding and coppicing in an arid environment, and a theoretical model for population density on Masada, and a theoretical model for timber use at Masada. If any one of these models is inaccurate, the whole thing collapses. :roll: (And not really anything to do with prata legionis.)

[john m roberts]

Is it possible that some of this was arable land used to raise food for the legion? My father was in China in WWII and he remembered the local Chinese regiments farming the area around their bases, in fact raising most of their own food. I've seen 19th century photographs of American soldiers at forts on the western frontier posing with the melons, pumpkins and other produce they've raised in kitchen gardens. Since the legions were traditionally drawn from the peasant farmer class, might they not have been kept busy raising veggies for the legion?

[Steve Kaye]

And not really anything to do with prata legionis.)

Quite right; just trying to be helpful.

Vindex started this thread, raised the issue of Mesada - sorry Masada - and you chipped in to that, so I thought it might be of general interest.

Regards, Steve K

[Vindex]

Vindex started this thread, raised the issue of Mesada - sorry Masada - and you chipped in to that, so I thought it might be of general interest.

Regards, Steve K

To be more correct I mentioned wood in parenthesis with reference to your comment 6) on your interesting spreadhsheet which said wood was a concern of yours - I was also merely trying to be helpful but no, it isn't relevant to prata legionis (but still useful!)