Posts: 367
Threads: 29
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
I know it is not a perfect comparison, but I think it could be less misleading than simply compare total numbers listed in the literary sourcess. My basic ideas on this are
1) That documentary sourcess, like list of units, are more acurate than literary sourcess, so however difficult to stablish theoretical average strength for units it would be more enlightning to compare those lists
2) In general I think that the total numbers for the Late Empire are inflated because the highly bureaucratic nature of the state, I mean more or less irregular forces that in the Early Empire would not be listed except when call upon, are listed in the Late Empire as border units. As you say, broder units can be upgraded into field armies, but that is part of the shifting nature of every army, and with so few sourcess available we can´t expect nothing more.
I will have to make more calculations, but my first impression is that the Roman army in the I-II century was similar in size to the field army of the IV century, and that there was a real increase in numbers in the III century because of the civil wars.
BTW I took the 500 strength of the Auxilia Palatina from the Osprey book on the Roman Infantry in Late Empire, the more convincing argument on to me on that is that Auxilia units were usually brigaded in pairs, and it is a well known fact in military history that the maximum ideal size for a tactical infantry unit is 800-1.000. For the same reason I agree that 350 for a cavalry vexillatio is a more reasonable figure than 500, as 300-350 is usually consider the ideal maximum for a cavalry tactical unit.
AKA Inaki
Posts: 367
Threads: 29
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
By literary I mean narrative sources. Some of them could be trusted more than others but most of them are for sure inflating numbers, at least that is my experience with medieval sources.
I know the comparison is not exactly scientific, but I think it is better than simply comparing the total numbers given in the literary sources.
BTW could you please tell me in which chapter in the ND are the schola palatina listed? I can´t find them
AKA Inaki
Posts: 23
Threads: 2
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation:
0
I recommend reading "Unit Sizes in the Late Roman Army" by Terence Coello published in 1996 as part of the British Archaelogical Reports.
Coello summarises many of the academic studies concerning unit strengths and total numbers for the entire Imperial Roman era. The studies include those of AHM Jones and Ramsay McMullen.
One of the topics discussed by Coello is the many permutations used to calculate unit numbers. He concludes by stating that information about the Roman military is not extensive and difficult to quantify, although he believes that later units were smaller than early imperial units.
In general legionary units could number 1000 or more, while most non-legionary units were up to 500 strong. One topic that is not discussed is whether or not the various legionary units created from a single early legion had any ties or were completely independent. If they did retain ties, then it is possible to conjecture that on paper legions were larger than estimated by many academics.
Posts: 367
Threads: 29
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
Hi perrygray
I searched the Terence Coello publication but it is out of print, do you have the figures available? Is there any discussion of campaign figures vs theoretical numbers, and the problem of replacements? Thanks
AKA Inaki
Posts: 23
Threads: 2
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation:
0
Inaki
I recommend that you try borrowing a copy from the public library or a university library. I was able to request a copy through my local library, which got the copy from a university in another city.
Coello considers three major primary sources. Literary evidence is taken from the surviving histories, manuals and other writings of Vegetius, John Lydus, Ammianus Marcellinus and others. Some of their numbers may have come from government sources. Agathias writing in the mid-6th Century stated that the total military had been 645,000 but had been reduced to 150,000 by Justinian. John Lydus wrote that the military of Diocletian numbered 389,704 soldiers and 45,562 sailors. Some of the totals may have been total fantasy. Unit sizes vary and likely reflect campaign strengths rather than full strengths.
His second source is that of documentary evidence namely the Panopolite papyri of Upper Egypt that discuss 11 units of that region. These have been assessed by various modern historians who have deduced varying unit sizes from the information. The other source in this category is the Notitia Dignitatum, which does not provide numbers just the names of the units. Again modern studies have used these units to propose various overall numbers for the military.
The last source is the study of the archaeological evidence mainly military facilities like forts and bases. The size of the garrisons have been deduced from the space allotted for housing and the overall size of the facility. The possible presence of families and the fact that garrisons may have been much smaller than “wartime establishmentâ€Â
Posts: 367
Threads: 29
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
Thanks for the info perrygrey
AKA Inaki
