03-28-2024, 04:36 AM
FlaviusB wrote:
Jonathan Roth's 1994 article "The Size and Organization of the Imperial Roman Legion," argues that Vegetius was likely playing fast-and-loose with the numbers for the Legion.”
I find Jonathan Ross guilty of doing exactly the same, loose with the numbers. Like many academics, anything that jeopardises his theory is dismissed. For example, Suetonius gives a legion at 5,600 men, and because this does not sit well with his theory of a legion having 4,800 infantry and 1,200 slaves, he writes “Suetonius is almost certainly referring to a republican legion consisting of 5,200 infantry and 400 cavalry.”
So, Roth, prove it. Give me a troop breakdown of the 5,200 infantry plus their organisation, and the same goes for the cavalry. 5,200 infantry divided by 60 centuries per legion equals 86 point 66. So how does that work? And exactly how are the 400-cavalry organised? Give us details. Surprising to many, Tacitus, Josephus and other support Suetonius’ 5,600 figure. I am seriously convinced that academics must be the most mathematically challenged people on this planet.
Roth explains that Lydus assigns 6,000 men to a legion and Lydus gives the date for this legion to the early republic. Roth throws in the usual put down that “Lydus’ numbers are not dependable.” Again, Roth makes no effort to try and understand Lydus. Roth tells us that Lydus gives the date of the 6,000 legion to the early republic. Actually, Lydus gives the year as being 388 BC. Now anyone who knows their Roman history, will be aware that in 387 BC, the Romans added four new tribes, bringing the total to 25 tribes. Has anyone study whether there is a connection? Answer…no.
Let me share some of my research. Lydus, writing in the fourth century AD, has interpreted the 60-centuries as having 100 men, so the legion blows out to 6,000 men. Lydus is not the only ancient historian who has confused a century as having 100 men. There are a few more examples. Take Servius for example, he claims a legion had 6,000 infantry and 300 cavalry. Servius has the right cavalry numbers, but like Lydus has multiplied the 60 centuries in a legion by 100 men.
In relation to Hyginus, Roth writes: “If all personnel in a legion were assigned to the ranks of the centuries, regardless of their status, then the total number of soldiers authorized for a standard imperial legion would be exactly 4,800. Accepting this hypothesis, however, leaves unresolved the question of Pseudo-Hyginus' "missing" 1,200 men. They can be found by carefully noting Pseudo-Hyginus' terminology: he gives the number of "soldiers" (milites) in a century as 80, but says that the cohort has 600 "men" (homines). Indeed, there is a military category which belonged to the legion, but would be homines and not milites: non-combatant slaves. It is confusion about the role and number of military slaves which has led to both ancient and modern perplexity over the legion's size.”
And this is the crutch of Roth’s problem. Roth believes the discrepancy between a legion of 4,800 and 6,000 is due to 1,200 slaves being added to the legion. I can see why many have rejected his theory. It is baseless and preposterous. Like the example I earlier provided in the Vegetius posting above, Roth has no idea of how the legion was organised when in camp, and Hyginus is explaining the Roman army when in a camp. It’s the camp layout. Taking Roth’s 4,800 infantry for a legion, which would be organised into 10 cohorts each of 480 infantry, and following the camp doctrine for the principate, two cohorts amounting to 960 infantry are distributed amongst the remaining eight cohorts, so, 960 infantry divided by eight cohorts equals 120 infantry. Therefore, each of the remaining eight cohorts increased from 480 infantry to 600 infantry as per Hyginus. Someone, tell me where the maths is wrong.
Sadly, there is a lot about Hyginus that academics have failed to understand, and I personally like Hyginus, in fact I adore him. He has been the greatest gateway to understand the legion of the princepate.
And what does Roth say about Dio Cassius claim of 550 men. He claims “the number given in the text almost certainly does not refer to a cohort, but rather a vexillation or perhaps a numerus.” Well, besides his dumb arse opinion, does Roth provide any proof…no. He feels there is no need to for him to provide proof of what is the size of a vexillation or even a numerus, so how can he make such a claim.
And what does Roth have to say about Isidore: “Isidore's description of the legion's organization, given in the same definition, is odd - it begins with the accurate statement that a legion had sixty centuries and thirty maniples, but then adds that there were twelve cohorts and 200 (sic) turmae in a legion. The number of turmae is incomprehensible, and shows confusion and possibly corruption, but the misunderstanding of the number of cohorts may be enlightening. Under the heading of cohors, and probably using a different source, Isidore says that a cohort contains five hundred men. It is possible that, in an attempt to reconcile this (imperial) cohort with his (republican) legion of 6,000, Isidore concluded that a legion had twelve cohorts.
As I showed in the Vegetius example, the 6,000-infantry legion did, when in camp have 12 cohorts each of 500 men. But, the sad majority of people cannot accept that for a period of time, until Diocletian’s reform, there was a legion operating of 6,000 infantry and 600 cavalry. And I can tell you, even if the sceptics were given a time machine, or more irrefutable evidence was found, they would still ignore it, because, they just don’t like being wrong, and are more than happy to protect a falsehood.
Roth writes: “A careful re-evaluation of the literary and documentary sources, however, might well solve the issue.” What Roth means is my paper has resolved the issue” on what the size of an imperial Roman legion was. Roth is not alone in putting a theory first, and then dismissing anything that threatens that theory. Another paper that reaches the heights of absurdity is “Tactical Organisation of the Early Imperial Legion” by David Hoyt, which can be found online in pdf format. Much of Hoyt’s paper is a cut and paste of Roth. Hoyt follows the opinion of most academics, and believes the maniple legion was replaced by the cohort legion. This totally ignores evidence of maniples and cohorts going back to the reign of king Tarquinius Superbus (534 BC to 509 BC. To protect his theory, Hoyt writes:
“But what of Metellus' use of both cohorts and maniples in Africa, as described by Sallust? The legions by this time were undoubtedly trained in both systems as expedients for differing circumstances (cohortal vs. cavalry or undisciplined mobs and manipular vs. disciplined opponents); however, Metellus' use of maniples against the Numidian cavalry and infantry ultimately proved unsuccessful. By Marius' time the cohort had become the dominant tactical unit after a long period of transition. By the time of Sulla's campaigns in the east the cohort was the standard. There is no direct evidence to support the theory that Marius introduced it himself.”
Hoyt provides no direct evidence to support his claim. Opinions now reign supreme, and as most of the public only read secondary sources, such opinions gain traction and are taken as fact because, well, everyone is saying the same thing, it must be right.
FlaviusB wrote:
As for the Veredarii not evenly dividing among the centuries, the 280-strong regiment I suggested can still be divided into 5 56-man Turmae, which is enough for 1 to support each 320-man cohort.
You need to take all the data concerning the Late Roman legion to substantiate this, otherwise it is just a mathematical exercise. The Perge document is not going to provide all the answers.
FlaviusB wrote:
Assuming that I'm correct about the Legions being split into thirds under Constantine, possibly along their Manipular lines, it could be that a cavalry unit was added to at least some of the Legions.
I have a mass of data from the primary sources that it was Diocletian’s reforms that created the Late Roman legion, not Constantine. I give Constantine credit for abolishing the 35 tribes of Rome.
FlaviusB wrote:
(perhaps those whose Equites had not been used by Gallienus to create new Promoti units) to give them some added striking power and improved communications and intelligence-gathering capabilities to offset their smaller size?
Perhaps they did this, perhaps they did, maybe they didn’t. Perhaps is not evidence, just more opinions. Roth’s paper is full of obscurities, such as:
almost certainly referring to
Both are doubtless alluding to republican legions.
it may be a mistake or the number might possibly be lifted from Vegetius.
It is highly probable that after Augustus' reform all Roman legions had a standard nominal size
Upon careful analysis, most of these differences result from the misinterpretation of the evidence. (But not you Roth hey).
but rather to a vexillatio or perhaps a numerus
The first is probably not a legion at all
Vegetius might well be using "legion" loosely for barbarian numeri
Vegetius' numbers represent proposals, rather than descriptions
Vegetius might well have extracted accurate details from them, but only when they were useful to his scheme.” Well, isn’t that what you are doing Roth!
Roth hasn’t proven any of his claims. The fact that you employed Roth’s paper to show that a 6,000-man legion is plausible due to additional slaves tells me you believe the Vegetius legion to be fiction. If so, like many, your prejudices are your barriers to further understanding.
So, why is Vegetius’ legion not historical? Will someone care to answer the question?
Jonathan Roth's 1994 article "The Size and Organization of the Imperial Roman Legion," argues that Vegetius was likely playing fast-and-loose with the numbers for the Legion.”
I find Jonathan Ross guilty of doing exactly the same, loose with the numbers. Like many academics, anything that jeopardises his theory is dismissed. For example, Suetonius gives a legion at 5,600 men, and because this does not sit well with his theory of a legion having 4,800 infantry and 1,200 slaves, he writes “Suetonius is almost certainly referring to a republican legion consisting of 5,200 infantry and 400 cavalry.”
So, Roth, prove it. Give me a troop breakdown of the 5,200 infantry plus their organisation, and the same goes for the cavalry. 5,200 infantry divided by 60 centuries per legion equals 86 point 66. So how does that work? And exactly how are the 400-cavalry organised? Give us details. Surprising to many, Tacitus, Josephus and other support Suetonius’ 5,600 figure. I am seriously convinced that academics must be the most mathematically challenged people on this planet.
Roth explains that Lydus assigns 6,000 men to a legion and Lydus gives the date for this legion to the early republic. Roth throws in the usual put down that “Lydus’ numbers are not dependable.” Again, Roth makes no effort to try and understand Lydus. Roth tells us that Lydus gives the date of the 6,000 legion to the early republic. Actually, Lydus gives the year as being 388 BC. Now anyone who knows their Roman history, will be aware that in 387 BC, the Romans added four new tribes, bringing the total to 25 tribes. Has anyone study whether there is a connection? Answer…no.
Let me share some of my research. Lydus, writing in the fourth century AD, has interpreted the 60-centuries as having 100 men, so the legion blows out to 6,000 men. Lydus is not the only ancient historian who has confused a century as having 100 men. There are a few more examples. Take Servius for example, he claims a legion had 6,000 infantry and 300 cavalry. Servius has the right cavalry numbers, but like Lydus has multiplied the 60 centuries in a legion by 100 men.
In relation to Hyginus, Roth writes: “If all personnel in a legion were assigned to the ranks of the centuries, regardless of their status, then the total number of soldiers authorized for a standard imperial legion would be exactly 4,800. Accepting this hypothesis, however, leaves unresolved the question of Pseudo-Hyginus' "missing" 1,200 men. They can be found by carefully noting Pseudo-Hyginus' terminology: he gives the number of "soldiers" (milites) in a century as 80, but says that the cohort has 600 "men" (homines). Indeed, there is a military category which belonged to the legion, but would be homines and not milites: non-combatant slaves. It is confusion about the role and number of military slaves which has led to both ancient and modern perplexity over the legion's size.”
And this is the crutch of Roth’s problem. Roth believes the discrepancy between a legion of 4,800 and 6,000 is due to 1,200 slaves being added to the legion. I can see why many have rejected his theory. It is baseless and preposterous. Like the example I earlier provided in the Vegetius posting above, Roth has no idea of how the legion was organised when in camp, and Hyginus is explaining the Roman army when in a camp. It’s the camp layout. Taking Roth’s 4,800 infantry for a legion, which would be organised into 10 cohorts each of 480 infantry, and following the camp doctrine for the principate, two cohorts amounting to 960 infantry are distributed amongst the remaining eight cohorts, so, 960 infantry divided by eight cohorts equals 120 infantry. Therefore, each of the remaining eight cohorts increased from 480 infantry to 600 infantry as per Hyginus. Someone, tell me where the maths is wrong.
Sadly, there is a lot about Hyginus that academics have failed to understand, and I personally like Hyginus, in fact I adore him. He has been the greatest gateway to understand the legion of the princepate.
And what does Roth say about Dio Cassius claim of 550 men. He claims “the number given in the text almost certainly does not refer to a cohort, but rather a vexillation or perhaps a numerus.” Well, besides his dumb arse opinion, does Roth provide any proof…no. He feels there is no need to for him to provide proof of what is the size of a vexillation or even a numerus, so how can he make such a claim.
And what does Roth have to say about Isidore: “Isidore's description of the legion's organization, given in the same definition, is odd - it begins with the accurate statement that a legion had sixty centuries and thirty maniples, but then adds that there were twelve cohorts and 200 (sic) turmae in a legion. The number of turmae is incomprehensible, and shows confusion and possibly corruption, but the misunderstanding of the number of cohorts may be enlightening. Under the heading of cohors, and probably using a different source, Isidore says that a cohort contains five hundred men. It is possible that, in an attempt to reconcile this (imperial) cohort with his (republican) legion of 6,000, Isidore concluded that a legion had twelve cohorts.
As I showed in the Vegetius example, the 6,000-infantry legion did, when in camp have 12 cohorts each of 500 men. But, the sad majority of people cannot accept that for a period of time, until Diocletian’s reform, there was a legion operating of 6,000 infantry and 600 cavalry. And I can tell you, even if the sceptics were given a time machine, or more irrefutable evidence was found, they would still ignore it, because, they just don’t like being wrong, and are more than happy to protect a falsehood.
Roth writes: “A careful re-evaluation of the literary and documentary sources, however, might well solve the issue.” What Roth means is my paper has resolved the issue” on what the size of an imperial Roman legion was. Roth is not alone in putting a theory first, and then dismissing anything that threatens that theory. Another paper that reaches the heights of absurdity is “Tactical Organisation of the Early Imperial Legion” by David Hoyt, which can be found online in pdf format. Much of Hoyt’s paper is a cut and paste of Roth. Hoyt follows the opinion of most academics, and believes the maniple legion was replaced by the cohort legion. This totally ignores evidence of maniples and cohorts going back to the reign of king Tarquinius Superbus (534 BC to 509 BC. To protect his theory, Hoyt writes:
“But what of Metellus' use of both cohorts and maniples in Africa, as described by Sallust? The legions by this time were undoubtedly trained in both systems as expedients for differing circumstances (cohortal vs. cavalry or undisciplined mobs and manipular vs. disciplined opponents); however, Metellus' use of maniples against the Numidian cavalry and infantry ultimately proved unsuccessful. By Marius' time the cohort had become the dominant tactical unit after a long period of transition. By the time of Sulla's campaigns in the east the cohort was the standard. There is no direct evidence to support the theory that Marius introduced it himself.”
Hoyt provides no direct evidence to support his claim. Opinions now reign supreme, and as most of the public only read secondary sources, such opinions gain traction and are taken as fact because, well, everyone is saying the same thing, it must be right.
FlaviusB wrote:
As for the Veredarii not evenly dividing among the centuries, the 280-strong regiment I suggested can still be divided into 5 56-man Turmae, which is enough for 1 to support each 320-man cohort.
You need to take all the data concerning the Late Roman legion to substantiate this, otherwise it is just a mathematical exercise. The Perge document is not going to provide all the answers.
FlaviusB wrote:
Assuming that I'm correct about the Legions being split into thirds under Constantine, possibly along their Manipular lines, it could be that a cavalry unit was added to at least some of the Legions.
I have a mass of data from the primary sources that it was Diocletian’s reforms that created the Late Roman legion, not Constantine. I give Constantine credit for abolishing the 35 tribes of Rome.
FlaviusB wrote:
(perhaps those whose Equites had not been used by Gallienus to create new Promoti units) to give them some added striking power and improved communications and intelligence-gathering capabilities to offset their smaller size?
Perhaps they did this, perhaps they did, maybe they didn’t. Perhaps is not evidence, just more opinions. Roth’s paper is full of obscurities, such as:
almost certainly referring to
Both are doubtless alluding to republican legions.
it may be a mistake or the number might possibly be lifted from Vegetius.
It is highly probable that after Augustus' reform all Roman legions had a standard nominal size
Upon careful analysis, most of these differences result from the misinterpretation of the evidence. (But not you Roth hey).
but rather to a vexillatio or perhaps a numerus
The first is probably not a legion at all
Vegetius might well be using "legion" loosely for barbarian numeri
Vegetius' numbers represent proposals, rather than descriptions
Vegetius might well have extracted accurate details from them, but only when they were useful to his scheme.” Well, isn’t that what you are doing Roth!
Roth hasn’t proven any of his claims. The fact that you employed Roth’s paper to show that a 6,000-man legion is plausible due to additional slaves tells me you believe the Vegetius legion to be fiction. If so, like many, your prejudices are your barriers to further understanding.
So, why is Vegetius’ legion not historical? Will someone care to answer the question?
