Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 4.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Late Roman Unit Sizes
(03-14-2019, 07:21 PM)Julian de Vries Wrote: the Chronography of 354... lynched the Romans of the soldiers of Moesia and 6,000 Roman men were killed by the soldiers

Oh yes, I love that chronicle - it's full of bizarre random details!

In this case, it's hard to tell who's being killed by whom, but it's possibly a garbled reference to the old 'Theban legion' again, which as we know has various estimated sizes, often of around 6000 or so.

But we also know that real late Roman legions could not have been 6000 men strong, or the army would have contained over three quarters of a million men in the legions alone.
Nathan Ross
Reply
I just plugged in the traditional 5120 men for fun and the Gallic army was ~142,000 men strong, lol.
Reply
Evan wrote:

I just plugged in the traditional 5120 men for fun and the Gallic army was ~142,000 men strong, lol.
 
Evan, what is the traditional 5120 men are you referring to? Is this the size of a legion?
Reply
(05-19-2019, 03:13 AM)Steven James Wrote: Evan wrote:

I just plugged in the traditional 5120 men for fun and the Gallic army was ~142,000 men strong, lol.
 
Evan, what is the traditional 5120 men are you referring to? Is this the size of a legion?

I would guess the usual 6 x 80-man centuries = 480 men per cohort x 9 = 4320 + (one cohort of five double centuries of 160 men each = 800 men) = 5120.

I'm not sure what the rest means though! Is this based on the Notitia Dignitatum?
Nathan Ross
Reply
Either Evan has gone missing with the ninth legion, or he is still trying to recover from watching the last episode of Game of Thrones.
Reply
(05-21-2019, 10:31 AM)Nathan Ross Wrote:
(05-19-2019, 03:13 AM)Steven James Wrote: Evan wrote:

I just plugged in the traditional 5120 men for fun and the Gallic army was ~142,000 men strong, lol.
 
Evan, what is the traditional 5120 men are you referring to? Is this the size of a legion?

I would guess the usual 6 x 80-man centuries = 480 men per cohort x 9 = 4320 + (one cohort of five double centuries of 160 men each = 800 men) = 5120.

I'm not sure what the rest means though! Is this based on the Notitia Dignitatum?

Wouldn't it be 81 man centuries, since the centurion's supernumerary? According to Ross Cowan, double strength first cohorts, probably not as common, no longer existed in the late period.
aka T*O*N*G*A*R
Reply
(05-31-2019, 12:23 AM)Condottiero Magno Wrote: According to Ross Cowan, double strength first cohorts, probably not as common, no longer existed in the late period.

Quite so. I think Evan's calculation was based on the standard notion of the 'traditional' legion of the middle Principiate.

I'm assuming he was pointing out that the legions of the Notitia era could not possibly have been this size, as the resulting armies would have been massive.
Nathan Ross
Reply
Nathan wrote:
Sozomen 9.8) In 6 arithmoi, about 4,000 soldiers sailed to Ravenna at night from the east. Zosimus 6.8.2: "Just then six tagmata sailed in which had been expected since the time of Stilicho but which had only now arrived from the East in accordance with the alliance; they numbered four myriads." *…but the word should probably be chiliades - 4000 - which accords with Sozomen).


And correct you are Nathan. Being doing some revision of the Late Roman Army. And that means I am have come to the completion of my opus, and much has fallen into place. The figure of six arithmoi is the red herring.

It should read, from 10 arithmoi (10,000 men), 4 arithmoi (4,000 men) sailed to Ravenna, while six arithmoi (6,000 men), stayed in the East.
Reply
(07-30-2019, 11:18 AM)Steven James Wrote: It should read, from 10 arithmoi (10,000 men), 4 arithmoi (4,000 men) sailed to Ravenna, while six arithmoi (6,000 men), stayed in the East.

Hmm, why should it read that? The passage is about events in Italy, so why should either writer tell us how many troops 'stayed in the east'? And since the eastern Roman army comprised far more than 10,000 men, why are these troops mentioned in particular? And how could anyone make such a clumsy mistake?

It seems quite unnecessary. The six arithmoi were probably six numeri of auxilia palatina, perhaps the ones previously based in eastern Illyricum.

c.660 men per numerus seems a good estimate for palatine auxilia, just as a palatine legion may have numbered c.850 and a comitatensis or limitanei legion c.1200. There doesn't seem any reason to amend our sources so all the unit numbers are the same.
Nathan Ross
Reply
Nathan Ross Wrote:Hmm, why should it read that? The passage is about events in Italy, so why should either writer tell us how many troops 'stayed in the east'? And since the eastern Roman army comprised far more than 10,000 men, why are these troops mentioned in particular? And how could anyone make such a clumsy mistake?

It seems quite unnecessary. The six arithmoi were probably six numeri of auxilia palatina, perhaps the ones previously based in eastern Illyricum.

c.660 men per numerus seems a good estimate for palatine auxilia, just as a palatine legion may have numbered c.850 and a comitatensis or limitanei legion c.1200. There doesn't seem any reason to amend our sources so all the unit numbers are the same.

I haven't come to that conclusion from just those two sources. Clumsy mistakes can be made by ancient authors, and quite easily. The primary sources are full of them if you investigate. Some ancient authors provide extremely correct unit numbers for the Late Roman army, such as some of the numbers found in Meletius (252 soldiers), or Macarius (1104 soldiers). The 252 men is a subunit. All of Ammianus' numbers are all sharing the same organisation, as do his cavalry numbers. Zosimus, Vegetius, Orosius and Synesios, are also on the same page as Ammianus, so when the numbers all sing the same song, then I follow the beat.

As to your figures of 660 men, and 850 men, well good luck with going down that road. I hope you can provide a breakdown of all the subunits that go with those numbers. I have done so with my research, and every number can be found in the primary sources.  I don't need to make up numbers. However, where I differ from most, is I am following the primary sources that claim there were still centuries, maniples and cohorts for the Late Roman army. Following that principal has helped me to understand what the primary source numbers are about.

And the icing on the cake is Archelaus and the ridicules story of the 9,000 Christians. The source for those Christian numbers have been copied from a military roster. The numbers are damn good, both infantry and cavalry, and are on the same page as Ammianus, Zosimus, Vegetius, Orosius, Synesios and Sozomen etc.
Reply
(07-30-2019, 12:53 PM)Steven James Wrote: Some ancient authors provide extremely correct unit numbers for the Late Roman army, such as some of the numbers found in Meletius (252 soldiers), or Macarius (1104 soldiers).

I know you've mentioned this before, but I wasn't sure what it referred to. These are the names of martyrs, I think, not 'authors' - Meletius (or Melitius Stratelates - 'Meletius the General') is mentioned in a few martyrologies, and those killed with him numbered as either 252 or a more detailed 1218 including (or in addition to) a number of civilians and officers; I can't find an original source for either version of the account - do you know of one?

Macarius, or Makarios, is listed as a friend of the martyr Eudoxios; this martyr story seems to have some convincing elements - taking off the belts, for example - but the 1104 soldiers executed were those among the troops who confessed to being Christian, not all of the troops or a single unit of them (assuming the governor did not maintain a unit solely composed of Christians!). Again, I can't find a source for this - it just seems to be repeated here and there.

I would think 1104 a perfectly decent 'actual strength' figure for a 4th-century limitanei legion, which might be stationed somewhere like Melitene, but the appearance of the number here doesn't seem to have much foundation!


(07-30-2019, 12:53 PM)Steven James Wrote: As to your figures of 660 men, and 850 men, well good luck with going down that road. I hope you can provide a breakdown of all the subunits that go with those numbers.

That would be going too far! I could estimate unit structures and come up with detailed figures, but (except in the case of the Perge legion, which I suspect was pseudocomitatensis) they would be so hypothetical as to be almost imaginary...
Nathan Ross
Reply
Nathan wrote
I can't find an original source for either version of the account - do you know of one?


Julian de Vries has provided me with most of the sources. I’ll sort through them again to see which ones are the better references.

Nathan wrote
but the 1104 soldiers executed were those among the troops who confessed to being Christian, not all of the troops or a single unit of them (assuming the governor did not maintain a unit solely composed of Christians!).


You should not be concerned about whether a while military unit was made up of Christians or not. That is not the focus. The author has compiled those numbers from an historical military organisation. The 1104 men includes officers, infantry and cavalry.

Nathan wrote
I would think 1104 a perfectly decent 'actual strength' figure for a 4th-century limitanei legion, which might be stationed somewhere like Melitene, but the appearance of the number here doesn't seem to have much foundation


Oh it exists elsewhere. However, in other examples, the officers could be missing, as could the cavalry. But exists it does.

Nathan wrote
That would be going too far! I could estimate unit structures and come up with detailed figures, but…they would be so hypothetical as to be almost imaginary.

It should be every researcher’s criteria. I have provided a breakdown of all the detailed figures and how they are part of the same organisational structure, whether it be Ammianus, Zosimus, Vegetius, Orosius, Synesios and Sozomen etc. Otherwise, it is just playing with numbers.

All unit numbers are derived from the one larger organisation, whether it be legion or auxiliary. So you have one large legion organised into cohorts, maniples and centuries. When the seniores in the legion are detached from their century, the legion size is reduced, as are the cohorts centuries and maniples. The legion then changes in size again when units are detached like in the old days of detaching the triarii to guard the baggage. This again produces different sizes for the various organisations, but not the century or maniple. However, the number of maniples and centuries is reduced. Apply the same procedure to the cavalry, again producing different size cavalry units.

The Late Roman cavalry are also following a doctrine introduced in 499 BC (Livy’s chronology), in which the Romans needed more Roman cavalry. In 499 BC, instead of allocating each legion the standard 10 squadrons, change them into 15 squadrons. The same doctrine is applied by Diocletian’s strategy for the defence of the empire. It’s not a matter of creating more armies, but making a lot of smaller armies from larger armies. The Romans did it during the siege of Veii in 406 BC as well. For the Late Roman army, if the units need to be increased, then just add seniores to every century in every unit. This is easily done as every unit, be it legion or auxiliary is based on the same organisation, or sub organisation.

What I have learnt about the Romans is, understand their military doctrines and you understand the numbers. I cannot stress that enough.
Reply
(05-31-2019, 09:59 AM)Nathan Ross Wrote:
(05-31-2019, 12:23 AM)Condottiero Magno Wrote: According to Ross Cowan, double strength first cohorts, probably not as common, no longer existed in the late period.

Quite so. I think Evan's calculation was based on the standard notion of the 'traditional' legion of the middle Principiate.

I'm assuming he was pointing out that the legions of the Notitia era could not possibly have been this size, as the resulting armies would have been massive.

Talk about a late reply, yeah. I don't frequent here as often as I used to.

Yeah this was my point. And it was just a quick calculation, I didn't bother with officers (I didn't bother with officers in my Notitia calculation in my book actually. Probably should have but I considered them largely superfluous when considering the amount of sheer error in the Notitia and just estimating force counts for this period in general).

Arithmos is 640 men. When you tally up all the officers that didn't serve as line troops (Centenarii, etc.) it comes out to something like 668 so Zozimus' number is pretty much right.
Reply
(09-14-2019, 03:57 AM)Flavivs Aetivs Wrote: Arithmos is 640 men... it comes out to something like 668

That might be about right. But I think we should be wary of making these definite statements; we're all working from the same small body of evidence, and really all we can do is construct hypotheses within certain parameters.

Hypothetically, then, I would estimate a full-strength numerus of palatine auxilia at 678 men all included: 6x110-man subunits, each led by a centenarius and a draconarius (following Vegetius), with three ducenarii each leading a double unit - one of the ducenarii perhaps given the grade of senator - with a leading standard-bearer, a tribunus in command and a primicerius/vicarius as his deputy. That, I think, accounts for all the ranks we find in our evidence for the 4th-5th century.

It would put Zosimus/Sozomen's six arithmoi at 4068 men rather than a round 4000, which I would say is feasible.

A numerus legionem might have a similar set-up, but with ten subunits, ordinarii rather than centenarii, no ducenarii or senatores, and additional subunit NCOs (optiones, senior augustales, imaginiferi), and minor and major tribuni, making up 1172 men in total.

However, this would make the expedition against Gildo (5 palatine auxilia, 2 palatine legions, following Claudian) 5734 men, which is too large to be rounded to 5000 (following Orosius). So either a palatine legion was smaller than a normal comitatensis/limitanei one, or the campaign strength of these units was reduced, or (most likely!) the estimates are wrong. All these units were drawn from the western army, though, and quite possible were at reduced strength in the years after Frigidus, which might offer a tenuous explanation.
Nathan Ross
Reply
There is a document that seems to equate a legion with 1000 soldiers.

Prudentius Psychomachia

exultat victrix legio, quam mille coactam
martyribus regina Fides animarat in hostem.

Leaps for joy the conquering host which Faith, their queen,
had assembled from a thousand martyrs and emboldened to face the foe;

https://archive.org/details/prudentiuswi...t/page/280

Prudentius seems to have studied the Great Persecution under Diocletian, so this legion might refer to that period. This process can still be seen in the Notitia Dignitatum where some legions are divided in multiple parts.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Roman unit transfers Jason Micallef 3 932 01-04-2019, 10:35 PM
Last Post: Jason Micallef
  Ile or ala? : the unit size of a Roman ile Julian de Vries 3 2,586 05-18-2017, 09:36 AM
Last Post: Julian de Vries
  Late Roman Unit Titles - By Weapon Mithras 2 3,300 03-16-2007, 11:28 PM
Last Post: Robert Vermaat

Forum Jump: