+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Late Roman Unit Sizes (/showthread.php?tid=23660)
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Renatus - 03-26-2014
Quote:Coello lists six units. Roger Tomlin, seven unitsI see how this came about; Coello omits the Invicti.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - antiochus - 03-26-2014
Nathan wrote:
Big. 6000 men or so - Vegetius's 'ancient legion', in other words.
Ok, now I understand where you are coming from. Some on this list don’t believe in the Vegetius 6000 man legion so I wasn’t sure if you were in that school of thought.
Nathan wrote:
By the tetrarchy these big legions will have been whittled down significantly, but those in outlying places like Egypt they may have preserved their old structure longer.
That is a possibility considering the short time some of the emperors reigned for.
Michael wrote:
Adapting the Loeb translation to include these gives: “Alcides himself commands the Herulean and the king of the gods leads the Jovian cohort . . . The Nevian follows and the Felix well deserving its name and the legion named after Augustus and that well named Unconquered and the brave Lions as their shields witness.”
Inserting the “and” gives the impression of three legions being present (Augustus, Unconquered, and Lions).
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 03-26-2014
But none of those units are Legions in the Notitia.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 03-26-2014
Quote:Magister Militum Flavius Aetius post=352971 Wrote:And don't forget II Traiana in 298-304 had Lanciarii Vexillationes in Egypt. The Panopolis Papyrii are amazing.Evan, how are you accessing these?
Mostly Coello/Earlier Thread discussing this with Nathan. The Panopolis Papyrii specify that II Traiana's Vexillationes in Egypt were Lanciarii.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Renatus - 03-27-2014
Quote:Michael wrote:Legio is singular, so there should only be one. According to the Notitia Dignitatum, the Invicti and the Leones were auxiliae palatinae. What is misleading is "and that well named Unconquered" which implies that that unit was of the same type as the preceeding, i.e., a legion. I was sticking too closely to the Loeb. It would be better to say, "and the well named Unconquered."
Adapting the Loeb translation to include these gives: “Alcides himself commands the Herulean and the king of the gods leads the Jovian cohort . . . The Nevian follows and the Felix well deserving its name and the legion named after Augustus and that well named Unconquered and the brave Lions as their shields witness.”
Inserting the “and” gives the impression of three legions being present (Augustus, Unconquered, and Lions).
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Renatus - 03-27-2014
Quote:Mostly Coello/Earlier Thread discussing this with Nathan.I see. I was hoping that you might have found some site online which reproduced the papyri.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 03-27-2014
I was thinking the same translation (well named unconquered.)
As for the Panopolis Papyrii, I bet I could hunt them down. They probably are on the Internet somewhere.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - antiochus - 03-27-2014
Michael wrote:
I was hoping that you might have found some site online which reproduced the papyri
I was hoping for the same. Coello’s book is frustrating. I would like to know the exact content of the Beatty papyrus.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Macedon - 03-27-2014
Try this!
I do not know if these specific papyri are there but I am sure that whoever has the balls to really study what is listed here will be able to shed much light into the era... Of course the vast majority is Greek, as are the papyri you are discussing IIRC, but even some basic knowledge would help you single out some of them for more careful study. The other day I was browsing through them and fell on one that mentioned a praepositos of a legion (early 4th century IIRC) mentioning these exact words in Greek. Another mentioned sagitarii (again all Latin military terms in Greek) etc . But one would need an insane amount of time to study these texts with the proper care...
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 03-27-2014
That's probably them.
The issue is that the Papyrii themselves give no numbers, they only give stipends and gross payments to the whole unit, and Duncan-Jones and AHM Jones both tried to use Papyrii and sources from the 6th century to extrapolate unti sizes with.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - antiochus - 03-27-2014
Macedon wrote:
I do not know if these specific papyri are there but I am sure that whoever has the balls to really study what is listed here will be able to shed much light into the era...But one would need an insane amount of time to study these texts with the proper care...
Oh god, I just had a vision of chaining Professor Ridley to a table and not setting him free until he has translated the whole lot.
Evan wrote:
Duncan-Jones and AHM Jones both tried to use Papyrii and sources from the 6th century to extrapolate unti sizes with.
As does Coello, which in my book is madness to try and work out unit size averages based on this type of data. In the end its conclusions are nothing more than “if, but, maybe, could be,” which started to grate with me when I was trying to read Coello. There is enough empirical data in Ammianus, Zosimus and Orosius to calculate the organisation of the Late Roman army. 1200 men is four parts of 300, two parts of 600, three parts of 400, six parts of 200 and 12 parts of 100. However, 1200 men is not divisible by 800 men, a number that appears twice in Ammianus. That alone is a mathematical clue to how one should approach the problem. Then you do the same for the cavalry numbers and follow this up and determine if there is a ratio between the numbers of infantry to cavalry.
I have yet to see one historian employ this method, and I do not understand why historians have an aversion to mathematics.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 03-27-2014
Two different sides of the Brain.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Macedon - 03-27-2014
Ah! And so you know.... according to Malalas, Attila was defeated by Aetius in a unexpected attack on his camp near river Danube, in a battle in which his ally Alarich was killed by an arrow... :? :?
This sob is taking me three times the time of other sources to study and this is why.... Maybe I should write an article about history as Malalas saw it....
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 03-27-2014
I would read a comprehensive study of John Malalas.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - ValentinianVictrix - 03-27-2014
Quote:Macedon wrote:
I do not know if these specific papyri are there but I am sure that whoever has the balls to really study what is listed here will be able to shed much light into the era...But one would need an insane amount of time to study these texts with the proper care...
Oh god, I just had a vision of chaining Professor Ridley to a table and not setting him free until he has translated the whole lot.
Evan wrote:
Duncan-Jones and AHM Jones both tried to use Papyrii and sources from the 6th century to extrapolate unti sizes with.
As does Coello, which in my book is madness to try and work out unit size averages based on this type of data. In the end its conclusions are nothing more than “if, but, maybe, could be,” which started to grate with me when I was trying to read Coello. There is enough empirical data in Ammianus, Zosimus and Orosius to calculate the organisation of the Late Roman army. 1200 men is four parts of 300, two parts of 600, three parts of 400, six parts of 200 and 12 parts of 100. However, 1200 men is not divisible by 800 men, a number that appears twice in Ammianus. That alone is a mathematical clue to how one should approach the problem. Then you do the same for the cavalry numbers and follow this up and determine if there is a ratio between the numbers of infantry to cavalry.
I have yet to see one historian employ this method, and I do not understand why historians have an aversion to mathematics.
Don't forget the other mentions of 300, 500 and either 750 or 1500 men (depending on how you interpret the information) taken from each Legion that Ammianus mentions. Trying to figure out the size of the legions from those figures is also extremely difficult, unless of course you believe the legions were 3000 or 6000 men strong during the 4th century ;-)