The 1,000 man legion

[Robert Vermaat]

Well then, you must have a basis, say a time line, that proves your assertion.

Why? Did Goldsworthy not prove his assertion by providing a list of battles where the emperor was in command, or did you just accept his word at face value?

OK, I'll try to look up a list or else make one myself, about emperors commanding and no longer commanding. What sort of list or time-line are you looking for? Something basic, I don't have the time for a thesis. :wink:

Goldsworthy's observation is still valid to me. It explains the inability of the later Empire to meet military threats at least in part and serves to better explain why Rome "fell".

The list I gave you above of army numbers (which was just that, a list of army numbers), already proves that he was wrong, as it shows that larger armies were commanded by generals. which bring me to an earlier post of yours:

Before we go farther, we might ask which of these armies was commanded by a general and which was commanded by an Emperor?

The list tells you who was in command. The larger armies were not the standing armies under discussion here, but expeditionary forces or armies brought up to a maximum size just for one batttle or short campaign - usually in a civil war scenario (e.g. Constantine vs. Licinius).

This, of course, does not even begin to question the accuracy of the numbers [..]Then again, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

Well, if you start that, this whole discussion is useless, because if every time when you encounter a figure that prove your assumption wrong you bring this up we might as well all go home. We work with what we have and discuss the sources an a different context. Shall we continue?