09-14-2012, 07:52 PM
Nicholas,
Part of it is that I'm interested in late antiquity, and in 'barbarian' army sizes. Since there is no quantitative evidence from within these societies, I have to rely on the qualitative evidence, on cross-cultural comparison, and on quantitative evidence from other societies. Since there is no exact equivalent of Roman citizenship, and considerable dispute over the size of the 'free class,' I can't use evidence based on the number of citizens.
How is cross-cultural comparison, for similar terms, using total population, 'comparing apples and fireplaces'?
Maybe I need to be more familiar with the Roman Republican situation to interpret the Roman Republican data, but I'd like to find more examples, so I can compare multiple societies where recruitment/mobilization is for one campaign to each other, multiple societies where recruitment/mobilization is for a few years to each other, and multiple societies where recruitment/mobilization is for more than ten years to each other.
I never cited Brunt. I don't have a copy. Why do you think I cited Brunt for something he doesn't cover?
435,000/50,000,000 = roughly 0.9% of the total population. Why are you insisting on only counting citizens? Why are you only counting 10% of the population as citizens, after the edict of Caracalla? Also some of the troops were laeti, serfs, so only counting free citizens would be misleading.
I still can't figure out what you are claiming about 225 and 212. I think it's clear that Polybius' second higher set of figures are for available military manpower, not for soldiers mobilized. Thus [checking Forsythe and de Ligt] the 273,000 Romans and Campanians in Polybius in 225 compare with the 270,713 in the Roman census in Per. Livy book 20 in 234. The Polybian figures are probably census figures, and the other census figures, until Augustus, are for some adult male citizens, not all citizens.
I focus on 284 and 312 because that's what I'm more familiar with, and because I'm looking for well-documented examples for varying terms: some for short term [still not found], some for medium term [late Republic], some for long term [late Empire]. The late imperial figures come, as I said, from Ioannes Lydos, Zosimus, and Agathias, via Treadgold, not from the Notitia!
Sorry, but that section stood out for its anachronisms. Germans? In Late Antiquity? Who? I'm confused here. Tervingi now called Visigoths? I'm going to point to the Notitia, not good for numbers but good for issues like this, and point out it refers to one unit recruited from Tervingi and one recruited from Vesi [not Visigoths, that was a later term]. So probably some Tervingi were now called Vesi but not all.
There are some 'barbarian' units in the late Roman Army, no question there, some, like the Thervingi and Vesi, were mostly recruited within the Empire, and others mostly recruited from outside it. But most were not.
If, as is likely, the 645,000 with Agathias reports and Zosimus more-or-less matches was only the paper strength, the army and navy might not have expanded much from the 435,266 which Ioannes Lydos reports. If, as is likely given the Notitia, many of the federate troops were counted as part of the army, and if, as Elton argues, barbarization wasn't all that common, then I'm not sure how you can argue that 645,000 is an underestimate.
Part of it is that I'm interested in late antiquity, and in 'barbarian' army sizes. Since there is no quantitative evidence from within these societies, I have to rely on the qualitative evidence, on cross-cultural comparison, and on quantitative evidence from other societies. Since there is no exact equivalent of Roman citizenship, and considerable dispute over the size of the 'free class,' I can't use evidence based on the number of citizens.
How is cross-cultural comparison, for similar terms, using total population, 'comparing apples and fireplaces'?
Maybe I need to be more familiar with the Roman Republican situation to interpret the Roman Republican data, but I'd like to find more examples, so I can compare multiple societies where recruitment/mobilization is for one campaign to each other, multiple societies where recruitment/mobilization is for a few years to each other, and multiple societies where recruitment/mobilization is for more than ten years to each other.
I never cited Brunt. I don't have a copy. Why do you think I cited Brunt for something he doesn't cover?
Quote:435,000/(10% of 40,000,000=4,000,000)= minimum MPR of 10.8% of citizens in mil serve, while being 1% of total population.
435,000/50,000,000 = roughly 0.9% of the total population. Why are you insisting on only counting citizens? Why are you only counting 10% of the population as citizens, after the edict of Caracalla? Also some of the troops were laeti, serfs, so only counting free citizens would be misleading.
Quote:You started with 225 and 212, both showing the oposite from your suggestion, as does carthages and Greek numbers, you then moved to 4th cent AD Notitia numbers, which again show the flaw in your method.
I still can't figure out what you are claiming about 225 and 212. I think it's clear that Polybius' second higher set of figures are for available military manpower, not for soldiers mobilized. Thus [checking Forsythe and de Ligt] the 273,000 Romans and Campanians in Polybius in 225 compare with the 270,713 in the Roman census in Per. Livy book 20 in 234. The Polybian figures are probably census figures, and the other census figures, until Augustus, are for some adult male citizens, not all citizens.
I focus on 284 and 312 because that's what I'm more familiar with, and because I'm looking for well-documented examples for varying terms: some for short term [still not found], some for medium term [late Republic], some for long term [late Empire]. The late imperial figures come, as I said, from Ioannes Lydos, Zosimus, and Agathias, via Treadgold, not from the Notitia!
Quote:In your late Roman example you posted the regular army but failed to include those who comprised the bulk of the manpower. usna.edu/Users/history/abels/hh381/late_...arian_militaries.htm
These non citizens filled vital military roles.
Quote:Emperor Valens’ decision the Goths to cross the Danube might not have proved so disastrous if the imperial officials charged with supervising the Germans had not so mismanaged matters so as to provoke the starving Tervingi into pillaging the countryside. This, in turn, led to the Battle of Adrianople (378) in which a Roman army was destroyed and an emperor killed, in large measure because of Valens’ contempt for the enemy, which made him careless and reckless. The upshot was that Valens’ successor, Emperor Theodosius I, found it necessary to contract a treaty with the Tervingi (now called Visigoths) that allowed them to settle within the Empire under their own rulers and laws in return for providing troops when called upon to do so.
Sorry, but that section stood out for its anachronisms. Germans? In Late Antiquity? Who? I'm confused here. Tervingi now called Visigoths? I'm going to point to the Notitia, not good for numbers but good for issues like this, and point out it refers to one unit recruited from Tervingi and one recruited from Vesi [not Visigoths, that was a later term]. So probably some Tervingi were now called Vesi but not all.
There are some 'barbarian' units in the late Roman Army, no question there, some, like the Thervingi and Vesi, were mostly recruited within the Empire, and others mostly recruited from outside it. But most were not.
If, as is likely, the 645,000 with Agathias reports and Zosimus more-or-less matches was only the paper strength, the army and navy might not have expanded much from the 435,266 which Ioannes Lydos reports. If, as is likely given the Notitia, many of the federate troops were counted as part of the army, and if, as Elton argues, barbarization wasn't all that common, then I'm not sure how you can argue that 645,000 is an underestimate.
