The Roman Army of Diocletian

[antiochus]

Renatus wrote:
If the size of the tribes increases, is this an actual or theoretical increase and, if actual, where do the extra citizens/voters come from?

The size of a tribe or the number of men in the 35 tribes is way below the census figure. So during the principate the 35 tribes number in total 336,000 men (9600 men per tribe), but the census figure is around 4,937,000 for 14 AD.

Renatus wrote:
Do we know the actual numbers in a tribe?

Well I know what they are from their inception to the end. I have given in this thread the figure of 9600 men per tribe and later 12,000 men per tribe. Also Plutarch gives the size of the Roman army at the Allia in 386 BC at about 40,000 men and this figure approximates to the tribes for that time frame. Appian claims there was 50,000 men at the Claudine Forks and this also conforms to the tribes for this time frame. In both incidents I believe Appian and Plutarch have confused the tribal system for the field army. I cannot find any other answer.

Renatus wrote:
If Appian's (or whoever's) 45 tribes creates a problem, has he made a mistake and, if so, can we explain it or does it actually do violence to your theory?

Appian’s additional 10 tribes does no difference as they were a sham. Ten tribes were added for the Latins, but the Latins soon discovered that when it came to voting, the 35 Roman tribes had decided the voting outcome. The Latins realised the Romans had scammed them and this helped ignite the Social War. creation of the 35 tribes follows, not just the Servian constitution, the Pythagorean cosmos, but also the five elements which amounts to 14,400 degrees. If anyone of these were disturbed the primary sources would show it in the legion’s organisation.

Renatus wrote:
Sorry you are having trouble with laughing jackasses. Fortunately, the birds here are comparatively quiet.

The kookaburras’ squawk on for about 15 minutes and go quiet. It’s the end of the day so I guess they are discussing with each other the day’s events. There loud but I never grow tired of the sound they make.

[Robert Vermaat]

It may just be possible that the old style Legiones were still in existance during Diocletian's reign and that when he started his reforms, completed by Constantine, the legion strength may have been 6000 strong, on paper at least.

But of course they continued to be in in existance. Only some were broken up in 2 parts, or some in cohort-sized parts - maniples never seem mentioned in inscriptions but cohorts are. But some may very well have continued to be in the original strength. We know of the Roman army that reforms such as these were never carried out during a short time, nor involving all of the army at once.

Likewise, I do not exclude that the maniple may have been used at some points, but I agree with the others, it looks to me that Ammianus is using some sort of phrace rather than describing detailed information about the organisation of the army. I like 'lock, stock and barrel'. I also fits with Ammianus using language that would be known to his readers.

[Robert Vermaat]

Sorry Steven but your explanation does not convince me. I fail to see why your 'experience with the sources' allows you the interpretations you make, ignoring one and using another source, or adding or distracting numbers when they are too low or too high. What I still miss in your argument is not why you think you can make those interpretations, but why you can do so in each particular case. As a historian, I all too often come across modern writers who take such an appraoch and decide they know better. Yet even if that's true (which might well be true of course), the methodical appraoch still commands that you explain WHY a source is wrong. Now of course this is a forum and I would not expect you to write the details of your book here (far from it). But so far I've never encountered in your replies why you think that author X is wrong in case Y, apart from "I think he is wrong". I maintain that your theory lack a methodical approach in that particular sense.

I guess we have to agree to disagree there.

Robert wrote:
Procopius (who accompanied Belisarius on many campaigns) wrote during the mid-6th century, so I’m curious what you make of him.
I’ve been working on Ammianus, Zosimus, Orosius and some other fragments first. Once this is complete I going to reread Procopius. However, if Procopius is going beyond 420 AD then that is my cut off point.

Well, that's my point. You say this about Procopius and Maurice, but you still use Zosimus and Isidore, who are both beyond your cut off point.

My last point remains unanswered: you have not replied to my question about not taking into account a late Roman army reforms of Diocletian, Constantine and even later, where we see a new model army being formed that does no longer conform to the numbers or organisation of the Principate (nor of the Vegetian legion). This army reform plays havoc 9in my opinion) with your theory about numbers (at least so far). Looking forward to that!

[ValentinianVictrix]

It may just be possible that the old style Legiones were still in existance during Diocletian's reign and that when he started his reforms, completed by Constantine, the legion strength may have been 6000 strong, on paper at least.

But of course they continued to be in in existance. Only some were broken up in 2 parts, or some in cohort-sized parts - maniples never seem mentioned in inscriptions but cohorts are. But some may very well have continued to be in the original strength. We know of the Roman army that reforms such as these were never carried out during a short time, nor involving all of the army at once.

Likewise, I do not exclude that the maniple may have been used at some points, but I agree with the others, it looks to me that Ammianus is using some sort of phrace rather than describing detailed information about the organisation of the army. I like 'lock, stock and barrel'. I also fits with Ammianus using language that would be known to his readers.

I would have accepted it was a case of 'classizing' if it were not for the fact that Ammianus had been a serving Officer in the Roman Army. As an ex-military man myself I well remember that when doing drill we did it by the smallest sized element of the the whole company first, that being a squad of 12 men. We then did drills in larger size units until the whole command was drilled together. The fact that Ammianus mentions no other type of breakdown of the infantry other than Maniples, Centuries and Cohorts tells me that when he served in the Roman army that those were indeed how the infantry units were still made up of.

If he was classizing throughout his History then it would be replendant with references to the troops armed with the pilum, scutum, etc. But whilst he does still call the infantry swords the gladius, he does call the spears Spiculum and the javelins by the name known in his time. Why bother to call the arms of the infantry by the names they were known by Ammianus whilst at the same time use ancient terms for the elements of the infantry formations?

[Renatus]

If he was classizing throughout his History then it would be replendant with references to the troops armed with the pilum, scutum, etc. But whilst he does still call the infantry swords the gladius, he does call the spears Spiculum and the javelins by the name known in his time. Why bother to call the arms of the infantry by the names they were known by Ammianus whilst at the same time use ancient terms for the elements of the infantry formations?

Ammianus' usage of terms for weaponry is variable. As Adrian mentions, he uses gladius for sword but he never uses spatha. However, he also uses ensis (Amm. 16.12.52) and mucro (Amm. 26.7.16). He commonly uses scutum for shield but also clipeus (Amm. 15.8.15; 24.2.14).

As to missile weapons, he uses pilum at Amm. 26.9.7, 27.2.3 and 27.10.15. He refers to spiculum as a weapon in its own right at Amm. 16.12.46 but elsewhere as the head of other weapons - arrows (Amm. 25.1.13), other missiles (Amm. 19.2.9), fire-darts (Amm. 23.4.14) - or as a ballista bolt (Amm. 24.4.16). One contemporary weapon that he does seem to refer to unequivocally is the verrutum (Amm. 16.12.46; 27.10.15).

I do not suggest that this is an exhaustive list. These are simply examples that I included in an article for the Hadrianic Society Bulletin comparing Vegetius and Ammianus.

[antiochus]

Robert wrote:
Sorry Steven but your explanation does not convince me.

Well as you have your own agenda this does not surprise me. However, in an old posting you stated “All in all, it seems that Late Imperial legions numbered between 1000 and 1200.” Seeing as I have stated a legion could number 1200 men, we seem to be on the same page.

Robert wrote:
I fail to see why your 'experience with the sources' allows you the interpretations you make, ignoring one and using another source, or adding or distracting numbers when they are too low or too high.

Robert I don’t see why you have to resort to bending my previous post to discredit me. I explained my method of introducing sources in stages. If Ammianus and Zosimus writes about the battle of Strasbourg, then I use them, regardless of Zosimus living in the 6th century. Because I have stated I have not employed Maurice or Procopius until I am ready, you use this to accuse me of “ignoring one and using another source,” of which you are seriously mistaken. Next I bought into the discussion about the rounding of numbers. I gave mathematical examples and now you are accusing me of “adding or distracting numbers when they are too low or too high.”

Can you prove that Ammianus’ figure of 700 cavalry is not rounded from 660 cavalry (20 squadrons)? Can you prove that Zosimus figure of about 360 is not rounded from 330 (10 squadrons). Can you prove that Ammianus’ figure of about 700 cavalry is organised into two squadrons? You and my other opponents, always ignore or refuse to further discuss any empirical data I present, preferring to bend to your advantage trivial matters. What’s your method Robert? From your postings over the years as I am aware you have a tendency to dismiss sources because the author in your opinion is unreliable. You talk about the army numbers in the primary sources but you don’t go into any serious detail about small unit organisation, except to say you’re suspicious of those maniple references.

Let’s get dirty and talk about the rounding of numbers. At the battle of Cannae, Polybius numbers the Roman cavalry at “over 6000,” while Appian states 6000 cavalry. Has Appian simply rounded Polybius’ figure of “over 6000” to a whole number? At Pharsalus Caesar gives his army at 22,000 men while Appian states about 22,000 men. Has Caesar rounded his figure to a whole number, while Appian has been more correct? These are just two examples of rounding that can be found in the primary sources.

Robert wrote:
What I still miss in your argument is not why you think you can make those interpretations, but why you can do so in each particular case. As a hiostorian, I all too often come across modern writers who take such an appraoch and decide they know better.

Yes I have found this approach on this very forum. Take these examples from other members.

“That 5600 of Suetonius is a typo? If not 5600 is not a denominator of 600.”

“Antonius' guard was not (necessarily) organised like a normal legionary force. This was a new kind of Roman military unit: a large-scale personal guard, not a legion.”

“the Polybian legion is divided into maniples, not centuries”

“the early Roman army under the kings had units of 100 men known as centuries”

To your question about why I can make interpretation in each particular case is because I have more tools at my disposal than do you. Like many others you are still floundering about whether Vegetius legion was mythical or not, or in what time frame did it represent. Because I have those questions already answered for me, more doors keep opening.

Robert wrote:
Yet even if that's true (which might well be true of course), the methodical appraoch still commands that you explain WHY a source is wrong. Now of course this is a forum and I would not expect you to write the details of your book here (far from it).

Then if you believe the above then why are you passing judgement on my methodology when you do not have all the facts?

Robert wrote:
But so far I've never encountered in your replies why you think that author X is wrong in case Y, apart from "I think he is wrong". I maintain that your theory lack a methodical approach in that particular sense.

It would really help Robert if you quote me first, then I would be better informed to know what your point of reference is. Now tell me where have I stated “author X is wrong in case Y”? Please use my exact quote.

Robert wrote:
I guess we have to agree to disagree there.

As I previously stated, I am doing an investigation as to whether numbers in Ammianus can be linked back to the Vegetius legion. Any historian worth their salt should be doing this or has undertaken such an investigation. Are you making me aware that I am the first one to do this? At present I have not come to any conclusion as I haven’t finished my investigation. Because of this, and the fact I have never been able to establish what it is you believe the Late Roman legion to be (you state the conclusions of others), I have no idea what it is we agree to disagree on.

Robert wrote:
Procopius (who accompanied Belisarius on many campaigns) wrote during the mid-6th century, so I’m curious what you make of him.

I can’t give an opinion at the moment as I haven’t finished by investigation and I don’t want to make hasty judgements.

Robert wrote:
My last point remains unanswered: you have not replied to my question about not taking into account a late Roman army reforms of Diocletian, Constantine and even later, where we see a new model army being formed that does no longer conform to the numbers or organisation of the Principate (nor of the Vegetian legion). This army reform plays havoc 9in my opinion) with your theory about numbers (at least so far). Looking forward to that!

Actually you never answered my question. However, I find your line of questioning tiring as I have to continuously repeat myself. I’ve explained what I am doing with Vegetius and Diocletian by determining if the Vegetius legion organisation was the platform for the Diocletian reforms. Nothing comes from a vacuum. As to Constantine, yes Robert, as you place so much importance on the reforms of Constantine, let’s talk about Constantine. So what did Constantine do to the army organisation? I’m not referring to the army as a whole, but maybe you could state what Constantine actually did. Do the primary sources inform us about changing the unit organisations and what those changes are? Did he change the legion from 1200 men to 800 men? Or does the primary sources state Constantine did introduce the smaller legion? Hugh Elton writes that “Constantius’s army was similar to that of the other Tetrarchs, Diocletian, Maximian, and Galerius.” “The Cambridge Companion to Constantine” page 325.

Adrian wrote:
Why bother to call the arms of the infantry by the names they were known by Ammianus whilst at the same time use ancient terms for the elements of the infantry formations?

It’s the classical case of when the primary sources do not fit their theory, it’s the primary sources that are incorrect. One thing I have learnt about the Roman army is it is not just about understanding the organisational numbers, it’s also about understanding their protocol. I found this to be very prominent in Vegetius’ description of the 6000 man legion. From the battle of Silvia Arsia in 509 BC, the older men guarded the camp. This same protocol continues throughout the primary sources and can be found at the battle of Pharsalus when both Caesar and Pompey had the older troops guard the camp. My research shows these men are taken from the legion’s complement, so the size of the legion on the battlefield is reduced. Tacitus has legions of 3000 or 4000 men, which can indicate that sometimes the Romans only put on the battlefield those troops they believed were right for the mission.

For example, let’s play a hypothesis. And please remember that I stated this is hypothetical. Let’s say for argument sake a legion under Julian numbered 1200 men organised into two cohorts each of 600 men, six maniples each of 200 men and 12 centuries each of 100 men. Within each 600 man cohort is one maniple of light infantry (200 men), one maniple of medium infantry (200 men) and one maniple of heavy infantry (200 men). The 1200 man legion would consist of:

400 light armed infantry (2 maniples)
400 medium infantry (2 maniples)
400 heavy infantry (2 maniples)

Julian wants to cross a river but because the banks on the far side are muddy and slippery, Julian decides the situation is better suited to the light armed infantry and the medium infantry. So after embarking these troops on onboard, each ship has 800 men (400 light armed and 400 medium armed). The medium armed infantry will disembark and attack the enemy while the light armed give covering fire from the ships. The 400 heavy armed remain behind and will be shipped over once the bank is secure. If Julian decided to take 300 men (3 centuries) from his 600 man cohorts and sent them to the emperor, this could consist of 100 light armed infantry, 100 medium armed infantry, and 100 heavy armed infantry.

Now if Julian takes one century from each cohort to guard the camp, the cohort is reduced from 600 men to 500 men. However, as 500 men cannot be organised into maniples of 200 men, the maniple system is replaced by the century system. Therefore, a cohort only consists of centuries. For the year 483 BC, Dionysius only mentions the Roman army fighting by cohort and centuries. Maniples are not mentioned.

Although I have presented a hypothesis, I want to highlight the importance of trying to understand that the varying and what people interpret to be contradictory numbers in the primary sources could be the result of the various protocols the Romans employ. My research regarding the Vegetius legion can show that Vegetius has mixed the three main protocols together and this is why his numbers appear contradictory.

[ValentinianVictrix]

For example, let’s play a hypothesis. And please remember that I stated this is hypothetical. Let’s say for argument sake a legion under Julian numbered 1200 men organised into two cohorts each of 600 men, six maniples each of 200 men and 12 centuries each of 100 men. Within each 600 man cohort is one maniple of light infantry (200 men), one maniple of medium infantry (200 men) and one maniple of heavy infantry (200 men). The 1200 man legion would consist of:

400 light armed infantry (2 maniples)
400 medium infantry (2 maniples)
400 heavy infantry (2 maniples)

Julian wants to cross a river but because the banks on the far side are muddy and slippery, Julian decides the situation is better suited to the light armed infantry and the medium infantry. So after embarking these troops on onboard, each ship has 800 men (400 light armed and 400 medium armed). The medium armed infantry will disembark and attack the enemy while the light armed give covering fire from the ships. The 400 heavy armed remain behind and will be shipped over once the bank is secure. If Julian decided to take 300 men (3 centuries) from his 600 man cohorts and sent them to the emperor, this could consist of 100 light armed infantry, 100 medium armed infantry, and 100 heavy armed infantry.

Now if Julian takes one century from each cohort to guard the camp, the cohort is reduced from 600 men to 500 men. However, as 500 men cannot be organised into maniples of 200 men, the maniple system is replaced by the century system. Therefore, a cohort only consists of centuries. For the year 483 BC, Dionysius only mentions the Roman army fighting by cohort and centuries. Maniples are not mentioned.

Although I have presented a hypothesis, I want to highlight the importance of trying to understand that the varying and what people interpret to be contradictory numbers in the primary sources could be the result of the various protocols the Romans employ. My research regarding the Vegetius legion can show that Vegetius has mixed the three main protocols together and this is why his numbers appear contradictory.

Whilist I know you said the above is purely hypothetical, several points I feel do need to be picked up on.

For myself there is no clear evidence that the legions during the 4th century were 1200 strong. This I believe was a figure dreamed up by historians who refused to believe that the legions could be larger than this at that stage of the Late Roman Empire. I eagerly await the full documentation concerning the translation of the Perge fragments as there is tantalising evidence to suggest the legions even upto the 450's-470's were over 2000 men strong.

There is also no evidence that the internal make up of the legion had troops divided into 'light', 'medium' and 'heavy' infantry'. I agree that there was probably a percentage of each legion who acted as skirmishers, the rest would have been all armed and armoured exactly the same. As you admit to not being fully up to speed with the Late Roman army you may be unaware that the Roman infantry, both legionarii and Auxilia, could act in a number of roles as the situation dictated. There are numerous examples where legionary and auxilia troops were tasked with special operations and became 'light-armed', which Ammianus calls 'expediti'. This shows how versatile the troops were at this stage.

There are examples where 200, 300 and 500 and either 750 or 1500 (depending on interpretation) men of each legion was detached to under take operations, how does that fit with your theory?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I’ve explained what I am doing with Vegetius and Diocletian by determining if the Vegetius legion organisation was the platform for the Diocletian reforms.

Vegetius writes 100 years after Diocletian...

For the most part here I have to agree with you though. regarding your research methods. You cannot just dismiss a source because it is "unreliable." Cross-referencing the "unreliable" source with more contemporary or "reliable" authors (if you can call any author of late antiquity reliable...) is the best way to look at a source, rather than dismissing it.

For myself there is no clear evidence that the legions during the 4th century were 1200 strong. This I believe was a figure dreamed up by historians who refused to believe that the legions could be larger than this at that stage of the Late Roman Empire. I eagerly await the full documentation concerning the translation of the Perge fragments as there is tantalising evidence to suggest the legions even upto the 450's-470's were over 2000 men strong.

There is also no evidence that the internal make up of the legion had troops divided into 'light', 'medium' and 'heavy' infantry'. I agree that there was probably a percentage of each legion who acted as skirmishers, the rest would have been all armed and armoured exactly the same. As you admit to not being fully up to speed with the Late Roman army you may be unaware that the Roman infantry, both legionarii and Auxilia, could act in a number of roles as the situation dictated. There are numerous examples where legionary and auxilia troops were tasked with special operations and became 'light-armed', which Ammianus calls 'expediti'. This shows how versatile the troops were at this stage.

Both excellent points. I am eagerly awaiting the Perge inscriptions as it will also give more clues into how Aetius' Roman Army may have been organized and operated.

[Renatus]

My research regarding the Vegetius legion can show that Vegetius has mixed the three main protocols together and this is why his numbers appear contradictory.

I am extremely interested in your work on Vegetius. Will we find that in your book, when it is published, or might it warrant a monograph of its own?

[antiochus]

Evan wrote:
For the most part here I have to agree with you though regarding your research methods. You cannot just dismiss a source because it is "unreliable." Cross-referencing the "unreliable" source with more contemporary or "reliable" authors (if you can call any author of late antiquity reliable...) is the best way to look at a source, rather than dismissing it.

Have you actually read my post Evan? Where do I mention I dismiss a source because it is unreliable?

Adrian wrote:
I eagerly await the full documentation concerning the translation of the Perge fragments as there is tantalising evidence to suggest the legions even up to the 450's-470's were over 2000 men strong.

If I had to choose a hypothetical number that fits the Pythagorean system well it would be 2400 men. It just follows the principal of the triad consisting of two equal parts and one half part. Example, the number 6000 is divided into two parts of 2400 men, and one part of 1200 men.

Adrian wrote:
There are examples where 200, 300 and 500 and either 750 or 1500 (depending on interpretation) men of each legion was detached to under take operations, how does that fit with your theory?

Each number has to be studied individually. There is a reference to 1500 men being made up of a mixed unit for scouting purposes and could suggest three units of 500 men. It’s still early days. However, I want to point out that I have ample evidence of Diocletian being responsible for ending the Pythagorean system. I found he has the religious grounds to legally do it without destroying their belief they have the protection of the gods. I therefore have closure. If my investigation of a link between the organisation of the Vegetius legion and the late Roman army is inconclusive or too speculative I will not included this in the book. For me proving Diocletian shut down the Pythagorean system is what really interests me.

Renatus wrote:
I am extremely interested in your work on Vegetius. Will we find that in your book, when it is published, or might it warrant a monograph of its own?

It will be in the book under the title “The Last Pythagorean Legion.” Vegetius has mixed the distribution arrangements of the army in the camp with its battlefield arrangements. It takes less than a quarter of a page to explain it and less than one minute to verbally explain it. I like Vegetius; he is what I would call a target rich environment. Although it’s a mixed bag of information about different legions from different periods, what he writes about matches my research to a T. The stuff on the Servian army he must have taken from Cato because it helped me understand about when the proletarii were levied. This never occurred before the introduction of the so called maniple legion, so I could identify which property class and which time frame the ascriptivi belong to. Vegetius is a brilliant time line.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Have you actually read my post Evan? Where do I mention I dismiss a source because it is unreliable?

You were saying Robert was doing that and I was agreeing with you on that point. I wasn't saying you were doing that.

[Robert Vermaat]

Also you take one source (e.g. Isidore) and accept one figure (a maniple with 200 men) but reject another (200 squadrons ‘which is a corruption’) without telling us why one figure is to be trusted and another isn’t.

First of all Steven I would appreciate it if you take the personal tone out of your next reply to my posts. We are discussing a topic here, and of course we can both state that we disagree with the other’s methods, and why we do so. But I resent being accused of ‘having an agenda’ , ‘bending posts’, or trying to ‘discredit’ you. None of these are based on reality. In fact I think it does not befit this forum. Nonetheless I will try to reply to your questions in the proper manner.

First of all your remarks about quoting though. As I am an opponent of ‘mile-long’ replies I have tried to ‘condense’ my replies, in order to make them more readable. In fact, that is what we prefer here in this forum, because it makes discussions easier to follow for those interested.

Robert wrote:
Sorry Steven but your explanation does not convince me.
Well as you have your own agenda this does not surprise me.

No doubt you can share with the forum what my agenda is, and the proof of where you picked up the information.

Robert wrote:
I fail to see why your 'experience with the sources' allows you the interpretations you make, ignoring one and using another source, or adding or distracting numbers when they are too low or too high.
Robert I don’t see why you have to resort to bending my previous post to discredit me. I explained my method of introducing sources in stages. If Ammianus and Zosimus write about the battle of Strasbourg, then I use them, regardless of Zosimus living in the 6th century. Because I have stated I have not employed Maurice or Procopius until I am ready, you use this to accuse me of “ignoring one and using another source,” of which you are seriously mistaken. Next I bought into the discussion about the rounding of numbers. I gave mathematical examples and now you are accusing me of “adding or distracting numbers when they are too low or too high.”

I fully appreciate that you do not take all the material at once, and that some sources come later. That is not my point, even though it seems strange to me that you build an hypothesis without reading some sources – would it not be much easier to read all the material available before you draw up your conclusions?

No, I did not ‘bend your post’, I merely reacted what you wrote. You never stated that you were going to use Maurice, in fact 3 weeks ago you answered me “Maurice is too late for my time frame.” After which I reminded you that an author like Isidore is also from that period yet you make use of his writings. That is why I wrote about using one source while ignoring another, for reasons that I do not understand.
So please Steven, read your own posts before you are going to accused me of bending yours.

Finally the rounding of numbers. Repeating myself here (you are not the only one who seems to have to do that Steven), I have expressed my befuddlement about your methods. No, I do not think that this is out of the question and yes, I think that some authors surely did round off numbers. But my reply to you was about how you knew when and how to round off numbers and when not to. That was my question to you.

Repeated:
“Also you take one source (e.g. Isidore) and accept one figure (a maniple with 200 men) but reject another (200 squadrons ‘which is a corruption’) without telling us why one figure is to be trusted and another isn’t. When one is higher you say there are extra officers, when one is lower you as eagerly add them. And when an absolute primary source tells us 2 turmae, you as eagerly throw in a ‘corruption’ saying he really just meant 2.
Likewise, when a number fits your theory you accept it, but when it’s too high you say there are extra officers which should be rounded off. Yet no source actually mentions whether this is the case, making your acceptance/rejection rather arbitrarily, isn’t it? Or guesswork at best?”

You have replied to this question, no need to go into that again. I would try to find out IF Ammianus (for instance) rounded off numbers, why he would do so and if he did so every time. If that cannot be established, I would be very careful with statements like ‘Ammianus did so and so’. As I’ve said a number of times, I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying that you do not convince me. Is that a reason to become personal?

Can you prove that Ammianus’ figure of 700 cavalry is not rounded from 660 cavalry (20 squadrons)? Can you prove that Zosimus figure of about 360 is not rounded from 330 (10 squadrons). [..]

Of course I can’t, but that’s turning things around. Why bring this up again? My question to you was how you came to the conclusion that you could round the numbers, you gave your reply, after which I replied that you did not convince me. I stick to that – of course anyone can read a number and round it off, higher or lower, or not; one can also accept that the number is real. You are entitled to your conclusions, but I don’t accept your reasons. My reasons for not accepting your solutions lay in the fact that your methods seem too random to me, and rather more governed by a need to fit your theory than based on a systematic approach. Where’s the problem in that? You can repeat them here but that would be against your wishes, which is fine. Then why make my disagreement a personal matter involving accusations?

You and my other opponents, always ignore or refuse to further discuss any empirical data I present, preferring to bend to your advantage trivial matters.

Well, I am going to ignore the generalization here, although I really think that some rather interesting conclusions can be drawn from this statement.

What’s your method Robert? From your postings over the years as I am aware you have a tendency to dismiss sources because the author in your opinion is unreliable.

No doubt you are going to tell the rest of the forum how you came to this analysis of my person, quoting the many posts I made ‘over the years’.

My method (in a much abbreviated nutshell) is that of the historian Steven. Study the source, the writer and the material. Try to determine the reason for a source, because that also determines credibility. If a source is close® to the event, it’s preferable to a source further away from the event, unless that source quotes an earlier one. If a source makes conflicting statements, it is to be considered less trustworthy about statements which cannot be judged by other means (hence my distrust of Vegetius). If a source gives facts (dates, names, numbers) always take these at face value unless you have cross-references from other credible sources that give you reason for doubt.

You talk about the army numbers in the primary sources but you don’t go into any serious detail about small unit organisation, except to say you’re suspicious of those maniple references.

That is not the discussion here. I can, but please set up another discussion, this one is becoming derailed as it is.

Robert wrote:
What I still miss in your argument is not why you think you can make those interpretations, but why you can do so in each particular case. As a historian, I all too often come across modern writers who take such an approach and decide they know better.
To your question about why I can make interpretation in each particular case is because I have more tools at my disposal than do you. Like many others you are still floundering about whether Vegetius legion was mythical or not, or in what time frame did it represent. Because I have those questions already answered for me, more doors keep opening.

So you are saying that because you have accepted Vegetius as a source which is correct in all the numbers, you ‘have more tools at your disposal’? Well, that’s fine of course, but I’m sure that does not mean that everyone who does not accept Vegetius in that respect has a problem? Because myself and a great many historians do not share your conclusion. I’m sorry if that hinders this discussion but that’s how things are. We differ in opinion.

Robert wrote:
Yet even if that's true (which might well be true of course), the methodical approach still commands that you explain WHY a source is wrong. Now of course this is a forum and I would not expect you to write the details of your book here (far from it).
Then if you believe the above then why are you passing judgment on my methodology when you do not have all the facts?

It’s quite simple Steven. You make a conclusion, I ask you how you arrived at that conclusion, you answer me by telling me how and I tell you that I do or do not agree. In case of the latter you then answer me that I cannot pass judgment on your methods ‘because I do not have all the facts’?
Why, then, did you not give me those facts when I asked you about your methodology? I can only base my reply on what you tell me so, yes, I pass judgment on your methodology because you did explain it to me. If you withheld information please do not balm anyone else for that, I can only react to what you give me.

As I previously stated, I am doing an investigation as to whether numbers in Ammianus can be linked back to the Vegetius legion.

Well that’s no doubt a nice and worthy investigation, although I would have problems with that, as 1) I do not accept Vegetius as trustworthy in that aspect (although I am fully aware that I could be wrong) and 2) I do not see any evidence for the ‘Vegetian legion’ before Ammianus or even before Vegetius, who wrote about a century after Ammianus. But that’s me and really, perhaps you are on to something, I’ll await your final conclusions.

Robert wrote:
My last point remains unanswered: you have not replied to my question about not taking into account a late Roman army reforms of Diocletian, Constantine and even later, where we see a new model army being formed that does no longer conform to the numbers or organisation of the Principate (nor of the Vegetian legion). This army reform plays havoc (in my opinion) with your theory about numbers (at least so far). Looking forward to that!
Actually you never answered my question. However, I find your line of questioning tiring as I have to continuously repeat myself.

And so you are going to make me repeat myself in turn. Cute.

I’ve explained what I am doing with Vegetius and Diocletian by determining if the Vegetius legion organisation was the platform for the Diocletian reforms. Nothing comes from a vacuum. As to Constantine, yes Robert, as you place so much importance on the reforms of Constantine, let’s talk about Constantine. So what did Constantine do to the army organisation? I’m not referring to the army as a whole, but maybe you could state what Constantine actually did. Do the primary sources inform us about changing the unit organisations and what those changes are? Did he change the legion from 1200 men to 800 men? Or does the primary sources state Constantine did introduce the smaller legion? Hugh Elton writes that “Constantius’s army was similar to that of the other Tetrarchs, Diocletian, Maximian, and Galerius.” “The Cambridge Companion to Constantine” page 325.

Well at least we are on topic again, so I will answer this barrage. No doubt you know that no one is really sure who instigated the reforms that gave us the late Roman army as we know it. We are not sure whether it was Diocletian, Constantine or even both who are behind it, or if not some reforms predated or postdated them. What we do know are certain aspects, such as the split into seniores and iuniores, which most likely postdates Diocletian. Or the removal of military forces from the provincial governors, which is ascribed to Constantine.

But returning to my original question, your reply about the ‘Vegetian legion’ possibly being the platform for the Diocletianic reform (in regard to my question about the numbers of the late Roman army), I cannot agree. Maybe the ‘Vegetian legion’ did consist of 6000 men, let’s accept that for the sake of the argument (actually Vegetius mentions 6100 infantry and 726 cavalry-II.6), and perhaps it even predated Diocletian, and perhaps by the mid-4th century there were even a few units still 6000 strong. Let’s accept that. But it’s generally agreed that these large legions were no longer the norm in the Late Roman army. What we see are the much smaller units, You can of course hypothesise about Julian commanding legions of 1200 men, but Ammianis only mentions infantry units numbering 300, 500, 800, 1000 and 1500 (XVII.1.4, XVIII.2.11, XXIV.1.6, XIV.1.2, XXIV.6.4, XXV.6.13-15, XXV.7.3). Some scholars even come to the conclusion that it is possible that Late Roman units did not have fixed establishment strengths at all, but varied between a certain minimum and maximum according to need. To me that is more attractive as a hypothesis than a fixed model which governs everything from the Bronze Age to medieval times.

[Robert Vermaat]

For myself there is no clear evidence that the legions during the 4th century were 1200 strong. This I believe was a figure dreamed up by historians who refused to believe that the legions could be larger than this at that stage of the Late Roman Empire. I eagerly await the full documentation concerning the translation of the Perge fragments as there is tantalising evidence to suggest the legions even upto the 450's-470's were over 2000 men strong.

Agreed.
Although I won't go as far to say that the number was 'dreamed up by historians', we do encounter a great number of unit strenghts for the 4th century. And rather than forcing ourselves to think in ridig, all-governing models, I would rather take the more practical approach and accept that sometimes units were larger, sometimes units were smaller. And that includes units 0f 2000 men, of course.

I think that every reorganization of the army was not carried out within 1 year, but could take decades. For instance like the phasing out of the lorica segmentata, the reduction of the classical 6000-strong legions would have taken steps, each of which over an underdetermined oeriod. We find legions of 3000 men, but also legions reorganised into 6 independent cohorts, which each could cary the original name into the Notitia Dignitatum. It's a mess, really. Likewise we see the new ranks and grades with the new model army, but a continuation of the old ranks and grades in the classical army, continuing side by side into the 6th century even. That's why I think the new model army had smaller units, while the old model army had larger units.

There is also no evidence that the internal make up of the legion had troops divided into 'light', 'medium' and 'heavy' infantry'. I agree that there was probably a percentage of each legion who acted as skirmishers, the rest would have been all armed and armoured exactly the same. As you admit to not being fully up to speed with the Late Roman army you may be unaware that the Roman infantry, both legionarii and Auxilia, could act in a number of roles as the situation dictated. There are numerous examples where legionary and auxilia troops were tasked with special operations and became 'light-armed', which Ammianus calls 'expediti'. This shows how versatile the troops were at this stage.

Agreed again.
I think we have yet to find evidence for specific troops, whereas it's easier to conclude that several roles could exist (as you say), which could be carried out by every soldier. All soldiers received training in archery for instance (Vegetius said that, right?) which would be strange if you have specialist troops.

[Renatus]

I have no desire to derail this thread into a discussion of the merits or demerits of Vegetius but there are a few points that I think ought to be made.

If a source makes conflicting statements, it is to be considered less trustworthy about statements which cannot be judged by other means (hence my distrust of Vegetius).

We may have a philosophical disagreement about Vegetius' reliability. I believe him to be an honest reporter of his sources. Where he goes wrong, from our point of view, is in trying to combine them into a homogeneous whole. We forget that he was not trying to write a military history but rather highlighting practices from the past which could, in his opinion, be adopted by the army of his day. Bk. 2 is a muddle, as he admits, because he unwittingly tried to combine elements from different periods of Roman history. In short, I think that Vegetius is reliable as to the existance of each of the pieces of information that he gives but makes no attempt to say when any particular practice was in vogue because, to him, that was irrelevant.

I do not see any evidence for the ‘Vegetian legion’ before Ammianus or even before Vegetius

Like you, I am sceptical about the existance of a 'Vegetian legion' as such. It seems to me to be an impossible combination of elements from the Republic, the Principate and the Dominate. That said, I am extremely interested in Steven's research and, when the time comes, will study it carefully and, if it does suggest that a 'Vegetian legion' existed, will reconsider my position.

Vegetius, who wrote about a century after Ammianus

I don't know where this comes from. Ammianus is thought to have written in the mid-390s; Vegetius' outside dates are 383 and 450. Amongst the various emperors who reigned in that period, the favourites are Theodosius I and Valentinian III. Personally, I very much doubt the latter. Either way, it cannot be said that Vegetius wrote anything like 100 years after Ammianus and they could very well have been contemporaries.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I personally think it was Theodosius I. I know much about the era of Valentinian III, and I can assure you there would have been several references to the extraordinarily large numbers of federates in the army and to the use of Bucellarii if Vegetius was writing under the reign of Aetius.