Late Roman Unit Sizes

[Macedon]

I did not invent the wheel I am afraid... I looked it up and found this!. As a term, it seems it has not been explored adequately though (just 9 instances in Google, among whom some reps - I guess that soon we will be the number one source for them ).

Here, I have to add that most of the names in my translations are men sent to bring in (mostly) their units' wages.

[Nathan Ross]

just 9 instances in Google, among whom some reps

And only one source in English, and that from 1741? Virtually nothing on the web either. I think this counts as something very close to a new discovery! :-)

[Macedon]

In JSTOR, the term also appears 5 times, J. David Thomas' "Diocletian's Birthday and Date of Accession: P.Mich. Inv. 5298a Reconsidered" (1999) being the last one listed (quoting P. Panop. Beatty 2 too). I doubt, though, that anyone has really explored it more deeply.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

opiniatores

Same as 6th Century Roman Logothetes (I think it is) are they not?

[antiochus]

Michael wrote:
So, your theory is that the legion was, in effect, a cadre army', somewhat like the German army of the early 1900s.

I’m not familiar with the early German army of the 1900’s (the Kaiser’s army?) or the Prussian army of 1870, but yes it’s a cadre legion. To this can be added units of auxiliary troops like archers etc. I can’t see any reason not to add more Roman units to the core legion if need be. I have followed Vegetius closely in relation to this and the legion appears like a Napoleonic corps with each division within the corps having its own artillery. When I compiled the legion units I ended up not having the numbers end with a zero, so I knew something was wrong. It was then that I decided to calculated the decanus (decanii plural singular not sure) as being additional as one reference from Vegetius tells us, with the end result being the number of deans were exactly what I was missing. This answered one question and produced another….why are they additional. So after more mathematical grid work, I believe it has something to do with the way the legion is deployed, which has the subunits deployed on a wider frontage.

I’ve just added another papyrus I found in Coello’s work that is a perfect mathematical fit, so I must be doing something right. And most importantly, all the numbers abide to my Servian constitution research for this time frame.

As I have explained in my previous post, the legion’s organisation follows that of a cross word (across and down), which is how the Roman voting bodies are organised (the century assembly is organised horizontally and the tribal assembly vertically).

[Renatus]

Isidoros a munificas.

I must presume to disagree. Isidoros is described as 'aktouarion'; then there is a lacuna, followed by what might be the end of a name (though, if I read it correctly, the editor of the papyrus does not seem to think so) and then mounifikas.

Peteesios is mentioned twice, once only as a dekadarchos and another (2.7 or 2.174, if the latter is indeed the number of the line...) as a (dekadarchos) opiniator.

I think that 174 is, indeed, the line number.

The opiniatores are (or seem to be), a body of men within a unit that are responsible for bringing in the pay to the unit.

I could not find opiniator but I did find opinator, which might be the same. My dictionary defines this as "one who collected the tribute-corn in the provinces for the army" and cites Cod. Justin. 12, 38, 11. The Code reads, "Opinatoribus, id est exactoribus militaris annonae . . . ". Scott translates this as, "Commissaries, that is officials employed in the distribution of rations to the soldiers . . . " Exactores, however, are more properly defined as tax collectors, I think, so these men could be those entrusted with collecting the annona.

[Macedon]

Correct, Isidoros is an actuarios.

[antiochus]

I’ve been working through some of the army numbers on Robert’s web site. The four differing figures given for Procopius army in Persia in 363 AD grabbed my interest. What I’ve done is compare the army numbers to my research to determine if a pattern could be established. It has (for me) proven interesting.

Malalas figure of 16,000 men relates to the number of Roman infantry and cavalry.
Zosimus figure of 18000 men relates to the Roman infantry, cavalry and all the officers.
Orosius’ figure of 20,000 men relates to the Roman infantry, cavalry, all the officers plus the artillerymen.
Ammianus’ figure of 30,000 men relates to the Roman infantry as given above in Orosius’ 20,000 men, but it could be that Ammianus has also included the auxiliaries that could have been omitted from Malalas, Zosimus and Orosius.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Umm... Auxiliaries? This is the 4th century, not the 1st.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Umm... Auxiliaries? This is the 4th century, not the 1st.

Evan, why are you querying this? Ammianus and Vegetius both stated that the Legiones were supported by auxiliary troops, what do you think the Auxilia units were?

[Nathan Ross]

Ammianus and Vegetius both stated that the Legiones were supported by auxiliary troops, what do you think the Auxilia units were?

But the auxilia were regular infantry, and surely would have been included in the main figure for the army? Actually, I'd say the auxiliaries of any date would have been so included - they probably formed around 50% of earlier principiate forces after all.

There may have been other troops with the army though - various non-Roman allies. Tetrarchic formations often included large bodies of 'barbarians'...

However, army size estimates, particularly by historians centuries apart, tend to be notably inexact and often wildly different - we just don't know where the writers were getting their information from.

[Renatus]

I’m not familiar with the early German army of the 1900’s (the Kaiser’s army?) or the Prussian army of 1870

In 1908, the German army was described as a 'cadre' army that could not be set on a war footing without drawing on the reserves. I am not suggesting that this is an exact parallel but the principle seems similar.

it’s a cadre legion. To this can be added units of auxiliary troops like archers etc. I can’t see any reason not to add more Roman units to the core legion if need be.

Such as detatchments from specialist legions, as I suggested in a recent post?

decanus (decanii plural singular not sure)

Sing., decanus; plur., decani (NB. Only one 'i')

As I have explained in my previous post, the legion’s organisation follows that of a cross word (across and down), which is how the Roman voting bodies are organised (the century assembly is organised horizontally and the tribal assembly vertically).

Despite being an avid crossworder, I still can't quite grasp this. Please explain a little more fully.

[antiochus]

Nathan wrote:
But the auxilia were regular infantry, and surely would have been included in the main figure for the army? Actually, I'd say the auxiliaries of any date would have been so included - they probably formed around 50% of earlier principiate forces after all.

Tacitus for the battle of Mons Grapius lists the auxiliary separately from the Romans, which are described as legion vexillations. Josephus lists auxiliaries from legionaries. Hyginus list auxiliaries separately from Romans.

Nathan wrote:
However, army size estimates, particularly by historians centuries apart, tend to be notably inexact and often wildly different - we just don't know where the writers were getting their information from.

Of the four examples of Procopius army for 363 AD, three writers each have a difference of 2000 men, (16,000 men, then 18,000 men and 20,000 men). Ammianus has a difference of from 14,000 to 10,000 men difference). It all depends on the author and his style. Livy and Polybius have differing army sizes for Cannae as does Plutarch. Plutarch has included all the officers and supernumeraries, while Polybius omits them.

Michael wrote:
Despite being an avid crossworder, I still can't quite grasp this. Please explain a little more fully.

You will find the answer to your question in the section “The Tribes, The Elements & Pythagoras.” After that turn to the chapter “The Roman Army” to see how cohorts and maniples are created.

[Nathan Ross]

Tacitus for the battle of Mons Grapius lists the auxiliary separately from the Romans, which are described as legion vexillations. Josephus lists auxiliaries from legionaries. Hyginus list auxiliaries separately from Romans.

Yes, but only when discussing the number of auxiliaries present. I can't think of any Roman writer of the imperial period who gives the total number of an army, but not does include the auxiliary force as part of that total. They may sometimes use phrases like 'three legions with their associated auxiliaries' (or something similar), but in giving the total number of the force I believe the auxiliaries were always included.

The late Roman palatine auxilia (which is the real subject here) were even less likely to be excluded - they were elite troops of the field army.

At least, as far as know - there may well be instances that demonstrate otherwise, but you'd have to find them!

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Umm... Auxiliaries? This is the 4th century, not the 1st.

Evan, why are you querying this? Ammianus and Vegetius both stated that the Legiones were supported by auxiliary troops, what do you think the Auxilia units were?

Well they weren't Auxiliaries. Maybe another term for Foederati?