+- 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 - Nathan Ross - 04-10-2014
Quote:the idea that the name (auxilia) leads to an origin of the troops (non-citizens) is therefore a huge leap that I'm unwilling to risk.
You're right, of course, that there's no hard evidence, and the sole known natus for a soldier of the Cornuti (for example) is Singidunum in Roman Dacia (AE 1977, 00806), with the man in question being enlisted c.AD329.
However. I don't think it's such a huge leap that the origin of the auxilia palatina as a body lay in non-citizen recruitment. Why else would they be called by that name? Every other reference to auxiliaries (as far as I know) connotes non-citizen troops.
As I say, Roman citizens were found in these units relatively soon (the cornutus Flavius Aemilianus, above, being one of them) - but unless they had their roots in non-citizen formations, perhaps of the tetrarchic era, why would they be called auxilia?
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 04-10-2014
Singidunum is in Moesia Prima, not Dacia Ripense/Dacia Mediterranae.
Size difference could be a reason for calling them Auxilia and Legio Palatina.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Robert Vermaat - 04-10-2014
Quote:However. I don't think it's such a huge leap that the origin of the auxilia palatina as a body lay in non-citizen recruitment. Why else would they be called by that name? Every other reference to auxiliaries (as far as I know) connotes non-citizen troops.
As I say, Roman citizens were found in these units relatively soon (the cornutus Flavius Aemilianus, above, being one of them) - but unless they had their roots in non-citizen formations, perhaps of the tetrarchic era, why would they be called auxilia?
Because of the literal meaning? Given their status they seem to have been set up as a sort of guards corps, but we don't really know much about their origin. Like the 'stablesiana' we can guess that their names have anything to do with their originins, but we don't really know.
But many if not most Roman units, limitanei or comitatenses, seem to have been recruited to an unknown extent from non-citizen soldiers, so in that sense I don't really see any difference betwwen the auxilia palatina or the other units of the field army. And like I said, assuming that the auxilia were 100% non-citizens is a circular reasoning without any proof.
So many of the late Roman regiments have fanciful names linking them to the past. I still don't see the point in taking some literally (like discussions about 'crossbow-armed regimets') while (rightly) assinging others to a fanciful mind. The name 'auxilia' so far is no exception to that.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 04-10-2014
Quote:Singidunum is in Moesia Prima, not Dacia
You're right! Athough Aemilianus himself seemed to think otherwise:
...natus in Da/cia civitate Fla(via) Singedunum...
Perhaps a colloquial usage?
But why would a smaller unit be called an auxilium? The Roman words cohort and numerus both referred to units of less than legion size. Why therefore use a term which otherwise only connoted non-citizen troops?
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 04-10-2014
Quote:And like I said, assuming that the auxilia were 100% non-citizens is a circular reasoning without any proof.
I suspect I'm not making my point clearly here...
I don't mean that the auxilia palatina were composed only of non-citizens.
I mean that they were called auxilia because originally they were raised from non-citizens - i.e. in the late third or very early fourth century - or developed from non-citizen irregular units.
By the middle of the fourth century, they (like the other types of unit you mention) contained both citizen and non-citizen troops.
My argument is solely based on their name, and the possible reasons for it, rather than their later composition or development. After all, while we cannot assume that the lanciarii all carried the lancea, or the cornuti all had horns (!!), we must surely agree that there was some reason for these names being awarded in the first place... even if that reason is now obscure.
mile:
Late Roman Unit Sizes - ValentinianVictrix - 04-11-2014
Quote:Robert Vermaat post=353855 Wrote:And like I said, assuming that the auxilia were 100% non-citizens is a circular reasoning without any proof.
I suspect I'm not making my point clearly here...
I don't mean that the auxilia palatina were composed only of non-citizens.
I mean that they were called auxilia because originally they were raised from non-citizens - i.e. in the late third or very early fourth century - or developed from non-citizen irregular units.
By the middle of the fourth century, they (like the other types of unit you mention) contained both citizen and non-citizen troops.
My argument is solely based on their name, and the possible reasons for it, rather than their later composition or development. After all, while we cannot assume that the lanciarii all carried the lancea, or the cornuti all had horns (!!), we must surely agree that there was some reason for these names being awarded in the first place... even if that reason is now obscure.
I'm with Nathan on this point. It is logical that the Auxilia were originally raised from non-citizens but then once the unit had been established and been in existance for sometime citzens would have enlisted into the ranks, as Vegetius and others have stated was the practice by at least the middle to late 4th Century AD. The unit names at times appear to be nick-names. A classic example would be the Auxilia Palatina Regii. No one believes its ranks were full of 'Kings' because thats what its name implies! It was originally formed by King Crocus of the Alamanni tribe and the name appears nothing more than a nickname as it was raised by a King.
I'm of the view that if something is called auxilia or auxiliary then there is a reason for it. We might not understand the reason now but there must have been a reason for it at the time.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - antiochus - 04-12-2014
Nathan wrote:
But why would a smaller unit be called an auxilium? The Roman words cohort and numerus both referred to units of less than legion size. Why therefore use a term which otherwise only connoted non-citizen troops?
During the principate, the auxiliary were defined by unit size (quingenariae and miliariae). I believe the term auxiliary in the Late Roman army still signifies a predetermined number of men. Let’s say for example, the term legion indicated 3000 men and the term auxiliary meant 1200 men.
By following the Servian system, when I increased the size of the tribe during Diocletian’s reign, and applied the increase to the auxiliary units of the principate, the terms quingenariae and miliariae became redundant. The old quingenariae increased to 600 infantry and the old miliariae increased to 1200 infantry, which are organised into two cohorts each of 600 men. With the ratio of infantry to cavalry for the auxiliary at 4:1, the 1200 infantry can theoretically have 300 cavalry, bringing the total to 1500 men. After applying the increase to the praetorian and urban cohorts, a praetorian and urban cohort numbered 2000 infantry accompanied by 200 cavalry. Here, the figure of 200 matches Julian’s bodyguard at Strasbourg.
Originally I believed Diocletian was responsible for the abolition of the tribal system, but having now matched all the empirical data for the Late Roman legion to the tribal system, as Diocletian is a pagan, he has no reason to abolish the tribal system. My new conclusion is it must have been Constantine, when he converted to Christianity.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 04-12-2014
AFAIK Principate Auxiliary units were 600 and 800 (quingenary and milliary) - ish.
That's pretty much all of the processing power I've got for today.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - antiochus - 04-13-2014
Evan wrote:
AFAIK Principate Auxiliary units were 600 and 800 (quingenary and milliary) - ish.
You are reading a story about 500 American soldiers crossing a river. That is all the information you have. So what are you going to make of it? Do you come to the conclusion that their army organisation is based on increments of 500 men? You can’t because you need more information.
Taking the premise an American battalion numbers 700 men organised into four companies each of 175 men, the 500 men could equate to three companies numbering 525 men. Has the author rounded the figure of 525 men to 500 men? If the author has done this, does it mean it is not a full battalion that is crossing the river?
Returning to the figure of 800 men for the Late Roman army, which is a figure reported twice by Ammianus in reference to crossing a river, who are the 800 men? Are they all the men from a unit, or part of a unit? And is the figure of 800 men rounded?
To answer the question you need more information….and where are you going to find it?
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 04-13-2014
Ammianus is not a Principate source. Luckily enough, Principate units are far better recorded than Dominate.
Coello discusses Principate unit sizes some. He shows that 500-600 and 800 are the most likely numbers for Principate Auxilia units rather thoroughly.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - antiochus - 04-13-2014
Evan wrote:
Ammianus is not a Principate source.
What are you on about? Where did I mention in my last posting a reference to the principate?
Evan wrote:
Coello discusses Principate unit sizes some. He shows that 500-600 and 800 are the most likely numbers for Principate Auxilia units rather thoroughly.
If more scholars did their own original research than adhering to the conclusions of others, we would by now have a better understanding of the late roman army. And I for one do not think Coello has done a thorough job of investigating the empirical data. Much of his work is conjecture.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 04-13-2014
I never said it was established, I said it was the most likely.
Frankly, I don't have enough interest in the Principate to pursue an analysis of Principate unit sizes, although I might do so if I can scrounge up another 12K so I can go to college and I could use it for a paper or something.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - antiochus - 04-27-2014
I’d like to express my sincere gratitude to those who participated in this thread. For me personally it has been extremely rewarding. Much of the information provided by Nathan, Evan and many others plus the translations of Adrian, Macedon and Renatus opened the way for me to understand and determine the size and organisation of the Late Roman legion and also the Roman cavalry. The empirical data in the primary sources match with my research with the expansion of the Servian system for this time frame and also the Pythagorean system designed for 1200 years, which ends around when Stilicho burns the Sibylline books.
The Servian system by 405 AD has come full circle. This has resulted in the legion being of the same size as the legion during the introduction of the Servian constitution. The difference is the manpower of the tribes by the reign of Diocletian is 21 times greater; resulting in the number of legions that can be raised by Diocletian is 35 times greater than it was when Rome became a republic. Both numbers (21 and 35) still accord with the hebdomad system (divisions of seven), that are an important and an integral part of Pythagorean doctrine.
After covering the Roman army from the introduction of the Servian constitution to the sack of Rome, I can prove without doubt that the both the Roman social and military systems strictly adhere to Pythagorean doctrines, and that the legions are increased in size in accordance with the time frame of the Pythagorean saeculum.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Timianus - 07-07-2014
Quote:After covering the Roman army from the introduction of the Servian constitution to the sack of Rome, I can prove without doubt that the both the Roman social and military systems strictly adhere to Pythagorean doctrines, and that the legions are increased in size in accordance with the time frame of the Pythagorean saeculum.
Can you clarify: Are you positing that the number of legions was increased due to a mathematical formula based on size of the original tribes.....as opposed to practical considerations such as the need to raise to legions to respond to a crisis? How would this have worked during the 3rd century crisis when many of the Illyrian and dacian barracks emperors had little, if any, knowledge of roman history. Are you suggesting that Diocletian, whilst campaigning in the east, would base the number of troops he levies off of some abstract formula rather than practical necessities.
And, how does this work when you have multiple claimants to the throne?
Late Roman Unit Sizes - antiochus - 07-08-2014
Tim wrote:
Can you clarify: Are you positing that the number of legions was increased due to a mathematical formula based on size of the original tribes.....as opposed to practical considerations such as the need to raise to legions to respond to a crisis? How would this have worked during the 3rd century crisis when many of the Illyrian and dacian barracks emperors had little, if any, knowledge of roman history. Are you suggesting that Diocletian, whilst campaigning in the east, would base the number of troops he levies off of some abstract formula rather than practical necessities. And, how does this work when you have multiple claimants to the throne?
Due to receiving a private abusive PM viciously lampooning my research from a member of this forum (who needs anger management therapy), I have no wish to further discuss my research.