The 1,000 man legion

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Paul,

I would not be too hasty in dismissing Goldsworthy's/John's points....it may well be the case that political reasons were a major factor in the reduction of unit sizes

We agree, politics should not be denied a role, but I was addressing some ‘facts’. Robert (the other one) already pointed out that the armies at the disposal of the emperor were not larger than those commanded by his general, as was claimed. Neither were the armies much smaller than the armies used by Roman commanders of the republic and the Principate, as John claimed. See my rebuttal to John and the list of numbers below.

Excellent points about the Roman ‘building block’ principle btw. I wish I could have made my point so eloquently.


Hi John,

I'm of the opinion that Goldswothy was mistaken. So far I've not seen any proof of such a claim that the LR army was changed for political reasons instead of strategical ones. Nicasie makes a lot more sense than Goldsworthy!
_________________

I believe Goldsworthy's conclusions are logical given the facts he presents. The armies of the late empire were smaller than earlier periods.

Robert (the other one) already demonstrated in this thread that this is not a fact. If Goldsworthy actually says so than he’s thoroughly mistaken. See the list below.

By practice, Roman Emperors of the period almost never entrusted larger formations to anyone but themselves, and, when they did, they inevitably created generals who then got "royal" aspirations. It is logical to suppose that no Roman emperor was intersted in doing this. After the history of the 1st and 2nd centuries where Roman generals regularly pretended to the throne, can we blame them? Even entrusting a member of one's own family was dangerous.

That is not a fact. hock: Did Goldsworthy actually write that??? How many emperors after Constantine actually took the field with their troops? Take a look at Robert’s list of armies, and mine below, which shows large armies under the command of emperors and generals alike. How could this even be a ‘fact’? It would mean that only the emperor commanded large armies, which we know they did not.

Throughout Roman history, generals attempt to take the throne. Only during the 3rd c. this really became an epidemic, with commanders as low as the level of cohorts taking the opportunity. But apparently, as we can see from the numbers, this did not really influence the numbers in an army. And therefore I reject the notion that it influenced the numbers in a unit.

Another point is ignored too, and that is that this ultimately weakened the flexibility of the Army and its ability to meet threats. This made the Empire vulnerable in the long run. By the time of the late Empire, the political entity of Rome, that was able to lose 50,000 men in one day and still come back swinging, was long gone.

Very true, recruitment was an ever increasing problem for the Roman army, because a) it increased in number (and therefore needed more recruits), b) every person in the empire had become a Roman citizen (and therefore the lure of the army decreased), c) the empire was under threat (decreasing the lure of booty to be gained from conquered enemies).

But all this has no bearing whatsoever on decreasing the numbers of the larger infantry units.

Why does nobody mention that the number of men in a cavalry number actually increased during this same period? :wink:

To enhance Robert’s list, here are some numbers of Late Roman expeditionary armies, led by emperors and generals alike. I say that they do not differ that much from the size of armies from the Republic or Principate.

188.000 - army of Maxentius, 312 AD (Zosimus II.15.2)
165.000 - army of Licinius, 324 AD (Zosimus II.22.1)
130.000 - army of Constantine, 324 (Zosimus II.15.2)
130.000 - army of Licinius at Chrysopolis, 324 (Zosimus II.26)
100.000 - army sent to Africa 457 (Procopius Bella III.6.1)
98.000 - army of Constantine, 312 (Zosimus II.15.1)
70.000 - army of the rebel Gildo, 398 (Orosius VII.36.12)
65.000 - main Roman army in Persia, 363 (Zosimus III.13.1)
50.000 - garrison of Egypt, 269 (Zosimus I.44.1)
35.000 - army of Licinius at Cibalae, 317/8 (An. Val. I.5.16)
30.000 - army of Macrianus, 261 (SHA, Gall. Duo II.4)
30.000 - army of the magister peditum Barbatio, 357 (Lib. Or. 18.49), Ammianus has it at 25.000 (AM XVI.11.2)
30.000 - army of Procopius, Persia 363 (AM XXIII.3.5)
30.000 - Roman army in Armenia, 543 (Proc. Bella II.24.16)
25.000 - army of Galerius in Persia, 298 (Festus Brev. XXV)
23.000 - army of Julian, 360 (Zosimus III.10.2)
20.000 - army of Constantine at Cibalae, 317/8 (An. Val. I.5.16)
20.000 - army of Vetriano, 350 (Jul. Or. 2.77B)
20.000 - army of Procopius, Persia 363 (Lib. Or. 18.214) though Zosimus has it at 18.000 (Zosimus III.12.5) and Malalas at 16.000 (Chron. XIII.21)
20.000 - Roman army in Mesopotamia, 531 (Proc. Bella I.18.5)
15.000 - Roman army in Africa, 533 (Proc. Bella III.11.2)
15.000 - Roman army in Illyria, 548 (Proc. Bella VII.29.3)