02-02-2019, 09:46 PM
(02-02-2019, 04:20 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: As you know, we have no direct evidence for the size of the army Severus led into Scotland - Cassius Dio claimed he lost 50,000 men, but this is almost certainly an exaggeration or a mistake. The series of very large marching camps - 130 and 165 acres - if they are indeed Severan, would support an army of the size Reed proposed.According to what we know, Cassius Dio claim is simply absurd. Cassius Dio 77.13.2:
An imperial expedition lasting several years, led by the Augustus and his son, apparently supported by the fleet and involving the construction of new supply infrastructure would indeed suggest a 'very large number of troops'. Compared with the probable population density in Scotland, an army of 40,000 would be massive. Colin Martin ('To Scotland Then They Came, Burning', British Archaeology 6, July 1995) has suggested a deliberate policy of depopulation and attacks on arable land that he equates to genocide.
"The enemy purposely put sheep and cattle in front of the soldiers for them to seize, in order that they might be lured on still further until they were worn out; for in fact the water caused great suffering to the Romans, and when they became scattered, they would be attacked. Then, unable to walk, they would be slain by their own men, in order to avoid capture, so that a full fifty thousand died."
And we are not talking about the lost in the entire campaign. So, just in that step we see that the Romans lost... more men than their entire army in Britain... come on, or it is a mistake of the amanuensis or Cassius was under the effect of heavy drugs.
But, apart this, we don't have any evidence that the three Roman Legions of Britannia where costantly engaged in the north together with the II Parthica. So, it is hard to say that it was a "very large number of troops". It was a a campaign of significant dimensions, but not at all massive.
