+- 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 - ValentinianVictrix - 05-20-2015
Sorry for this necromancy but there needs to be an update on this thread due to the paper that Prof. Fatih Onur recently published. We now know that the Perge fragments, dated to around 500AD give the size of what may have been a Palatine Legion at between 1440 and 1660 men strong. This is much larger than is quoted by the majority of historians when discussing Late Roman legion sizes.
Coello was one of the principle causes of the outlook that Late Roman legions were quite small, around the 1000-1200 men strong. I am sure that Coello will now be wanting to take a reevaluation of his work as I am sure had he been aware of the existence and subsequent translation of the fragments we would be in agreement that Late Roman legion sizes could well have been around the 2000 strength mark I believe they were during the 4th Century when the Empire had access to resources and manpower the Eastern Empire in 500AD no longer had.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Robert Vermaat - 05-21-2015
I appreciate the conclusion from prof Onur (summarised because I don't have the full English translation yet) but I am not jumping the gun as yet to make it the new standard for all late Roman legions.
IF this was a palatine legion (and Onur is not sure about that) that does not mean that ALL palatine legions were between 1440 and 1660 strong.
Nor does it mean that it was the blueprint standard size of any other late Roman infantry unit.
For one, the evolution from the classic legion into the new one was a lengthy process in which the larger legions were downsized into several smaller units. We have but a theoretic notion of how that happened. Perhaps they were cut in half first, or along cohortal lines, or maybe only small detachments were removed?
Also, our understanding of the process in which new units were created is sketchy at best. Were they created at full strength at once, or around cadres of parent units?
Anyway, I'd say that, knowing the Roman army, it's far too early to ditch Coello (or others) even now that we may know how one late Roman (palatine) legion was built up.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - ValentinianVictrix - 05-21-2015
I'm not saying we ditch Coello or any others who have tried to identify the size of the Late Roman legions. Rather, what I am saying is that Coello and the others were obviously unaware of this new hard evidence and had they had access to it they would have course included it in their works and we would no doubt be looking at legion sizes perhaps quoted as being on average around the 1500 strength mark.
I think it is going to be difficult for some people to let go of the existing paradigm as it has been in place for so long it has been comfortable, whereas the new research has tipped the apple cart a bit.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Robert Vermaat - 05-21-2015
Quote:II think it is going to be difficult for some people to let go of the existing paradigm as it has been in place for so long it has been comfortable, whereas the new research has tipped the apple cart a bit.
Well that's my point - did this new research tip the apple cart? In my reaction below I point out why I don't think so (as yet).
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 05-21-2015
Don't forget textual sources still indicate Legions at strengths of approximately between 800 and 1300 men. I'd think it's likely that Legion size simply varied.
RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - nikgaukroger - 02-25-2016
I assume that the lack of new posts on this for many months indicates that no new information has been published recently and that Coello remains the best source for the evidence on unit sizes in the C4th/5th?
RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - Steven James - 02-25-2016
I may be wrong but I personally think this forum appears to be in decline due to its sister RAT Facebook.
RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 02-25-2016
(02-25-2016, 12:21 PM)Steven James Wrote: I may be wrong but I personally think this forum appears to be in decline due to its sister RAT Facebook.
Seems so, which is a shame - fb is great for quick messages etc, but it's near-impossible to search for particular information, and a lengthy and detailed thread like this one would be lost there. I suspect also that a lot of people didn't bother transferring their profiles, bookmarks etc to the new version of the board.
(02-25-2016, 11:56 AM)nikgaukroger Wrote: no new information has been published recently
Probably not, although I'm still curious about the Perge translation(s) - anything new on that, does anyone know?
(05-21-2015, 08:22 AM)Robert Vermaat Wrote: IF this was a palatine legion (and Onur is not sure about that)
I don't recall whether this idea was ever clarified. Why does Prof Onur think the legion was Palatine? If the details of their composition are being inscribed on a wall in Perge, surely it implies that the unit was based there and would remain there for some time - i.e. they were more probably limitanei...
RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - ValentinianVictrix - 02-25-2016
There have been some papers about the Perge fragments that have appeared on the Academia website. I think the main debate will arise when Philip Rance publishes the English translation of Onur's complete work on the Fragments.
Coello does include the caveat in his work that should remind us that his is not an exhaustive source and that new evidence such as Onur's Perge fragments could well add more to the mix.
As far as I am aware Onur originally thought that the fragments related to what he called a 'double-strength' legion because the existing paradigm has it that legions were only around 1000-1200 men strong, a paradigm strongly influenced by Coello. However, Onur appears to have changed his stance in that the fragments clearly show it was a 'normal' legion, so Onur feels that it may be a Palatine one which may have been kept to full strength. Of course having legions at between 1400-1700 strong around 500AD is not part of the accepted paradigm at all, no siree!
I don't think the RAT Facebook group is having much of an influence here, there are not that many posts each day there, and people can post stuff on FB that is not very relevant, stuff they would not be able to get away with on this forum.
RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 02-25-2016
(02-25-2016, 03:26 PM)ValentinianVictrix Wrote: Onur feels that it may be a Palatine one... legions at between 1400-1700 strong around 500AD is not part of the accepted paradigm...
As far as I can tell (from reading back through other threads and the English summary of Onur's book) the 'palatine' identification comes solely from the text being apparently addressed to a magister (militum?).
But as the magister could well be in overall command of all the troops in their region, it seems perfectly likely that the soldiers of a limitanei unit would address themselves to him, rather than just the local dux. Of course, it could equally (I think) have been the magister officiorum being addressed, the guy who compiled the notitia dignitatum, and therefore had direct overview of troops numbers etc.
If this was a legion of the limitanei there would be no problems in its being c1500 strong, or even greater. The chances of a palatine legion being present in Pamphylia, and recording their numbers on the wall of a provincial town, seems slightly harder to credit, I think.
(02-25-2016, 03:26 PM)ValentinianVictrix Wrote: people can post stuff on FB that... they would not be able to get away with on this forum.
Quite true!
RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 02-25-2016
The Praesentalis units were stationed on either side of Constantinopolis, with the Praesentalis II army in Chrysiopolis. So no, I highly doubt you would have a Palatine legion in Pamphylia.
It should be noted that the Praesentalis I, Thracian, and Moesian field armies, possibly also the Praesentalis II army, were all annihilated by the Huns in 441-443 or 445-447. The Romans would continue to suffer many military defeats in the Balkans for some time afterwards, again in large part to the Attilid Huns or Kutrigur/Utigur Huns, but also to the Goths and some other Germanic groups. I sincerely doubt any palatine grade units would be in a backwater of Anatolia, rather than on the Persian frontier.
However, I do believe Pamphylia is completely missing from the Notitia, and considering its proximity to troublesome Isauria I would not be surprised if there were Limitanei units there.
RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - nikgaukroger - 02-25-2016
(02-25-2016, 03:26 PM)ValentinianVictrix Wrote: There have been some papers about the Perge fragments that have appeared on the Academia website.
Do you have any links for those? Would be interesting to read.
It does strike me that even if this example is a field army unit it is a single case (at present) and thus an outlier and it would be foolish to base too much on it. The Coello info on unit sizes would still heavily outweigh it in terms of what was normal.
RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 02-25-2016
(02-25-2016, 07:11 PM)Flavivs Aetivs Wrote: Pamphylia is completely missing from the Notitia, and considering its proximity to troublesome Isauria I would not be surprised if there were Limitanei units there.
There certainly were. Ammianus Marcellinus (14.2) describes a brief war with the Isaurians in c.354. After mentioning "the soldiers quartered in the numerous towns and fortresses which lie near those regions", he particularly mentions "Pamphylia... protected everywhere by strong garrisons", "the legions that were then wintering at Side" in that province, and "Seleucia, the metropolis of the province, which Count Castricius was holding with three legions steeled by hard service". These are later supported by "Nebridius, Count of the East [who] got together troops from every side".
So this region was heavily garrisoned by limitanei legions. Mostly probably the one listed on the Perge fragments was of this sort.
RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - nikgaukroger - 02-25-2016
Well the region was garrisoned over 100 years before the fragment anyway by that evidence
OK, the region did remain unsettled and almost certainly continued to have a garrison, however, just wanted to make a point about use of evidence that is not of the period in question - see way too much of it in respect of the late empire (usually dodgy use of the Notitia).
RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 02-25-2016
(02-25-2016, 08:04 PM)nikgaukroger Wrote: just wanted to make a point about use of evidence that is not of the period in question
Of course. And also of course Ammianus's perhaps vague military terminology - in this same section he mentions a 'cohort of cavalry'...
But as Isauria and Pamphylia were not garrisoned at all until the late 3rd century at the earliest, and trouble with the Isaurians apparently continued into the early 6th century, I would think it a safe bet that strong limitanei forces remained there throughout the period in question.