12-20-2013, 12:28 PM
Hi Steven,
First of all I am a bit unsure about how you use the sources. Ammianus is of course a contemporary and even a military man. Zosimus is already writing a good deal later (presumably by the end of the 5th century). Vegetius is used quite indiscriminately even though we know that some of his sources are by no means to be trusted (or else what Vegetius does with them). You say Maurice is too late for you, yet we know that much of what he uses is going back to at least the 4th century or even earlier. Instead you accept the numbers given by Johanes Lydus, even when he supposedly mentions numbers of the Republican army (which is a gap much larger than that between the late Roman army and Maurice). You even use Isidore, who wrote close to Maurice in time, but far removed from the 4th century – even long after the Roman Empire ceased in Spain to exist and totally without any military experience!
Steven, first of all the ‘Vegetian legion’ is still a mirage, nobody knows for sure when it existed or even IF it existed. It may be theoretical, it may be Republican, it may be pre-Diocletianic.. we don’t know. Using it as a solid base for the Late Roman army however in my opinion is incorrect, for we can be fairly surly that this ‘Vegetian legion’ is not the model for Diocletianic or Constantinian legions, neither comitatensan nor limitanei. The Vegetian model is NOT the new style, as is evidenced by plenty of sources. The cavalry was removed from the infantry into independent units. They no longer accompanied the legion’. Nor did maniples exist at least after Constantine as far as I’m aware, at least as the basic organization of the legion, old or new.
Procopius (who accompanied Belisarius on many campaigns) wrote during the mid-6th century, so I’m curious what you make of him.
Frankly, I’m beginning to wonder if you are more interested in sources who happen to name the right number instead of sources who are the most trustworthy. Of course numbers are not written in stone and unfortunately a lot depends on the interpretation of evidence. I read that you prefer “when a source backs up my Pythagorean research, it would be folly of me to waste that source.” Alternatively, there seem to be many sources that do not do so, and these you seem to put less weight on.
Also you take one source (e.g. Isidore) and accept one figure (a maniple with 200 men) but reject another (200 squadrons ‘which is a corruption’) without telling us why one figure is to be trusted and another isn’t. When one is higher you say there are extra officers, when one is lower you as eagerly add them. And when an absolute primary source tells us 2 turmae, you as eagerly throw in a ‘corruption’ saying he really just meant 2.
Likewise, when a number fits your theory you accept it, but when it’s too high you say there are extra officers which should be rounded off. Yet no source actually mentions whether this is the case, making your acceptance/rejection rather arbitrarily, isn’t it? Or guesswork at best?
I fear you are being rather selective but not on any systematic grounds. But that’s your choice of course.
First of all I am a bit unsure about how you use the sources. Ammianus is of course a contemporary and even a military man. Zosimus is already writing a good deal later (presumably by the end of the 5th century). Vegetius is used quite indiscriminately even though we know that some of his sources are by no means to be trusted (or else what Vegetius does with them). You say Maurice is too late for you, yet we know that much of what he uses is going back to at least the 4th century or even earlier. Instead you accept the numbers given by Johanes Lydus, even when he supposedly mentions numbers of the Republican army (which is a gap much larger than that between the late Roman army and Maurice). You even use Isidore, who wrote close to Maurice in time, but far removed from the 4th century – even long after the Roman Empire ceased in Spain to exist and totally without any military experience!
Steven, first of all the ‘Vegetian legion’ is still a mirage, nobody knows for sure when it existed or even IF it existed. It may be theoretical, it may be Republican, it may be pre-Diocletianic.. we don’t know. Using it as a solid base for the Late Roman army however in my opinion is incorrect, for we can be fairly surly that this ‘Vegetian legion’ is not the model for Diocletianic or Constantinian legions, neither comitatensan nor limitanei. The Vegetian model is NOT the new style, as is evidenced by plenty of sources. The cavalry was removed from the infantry into independent units. They no longer accompanied the legion’. Nor did maniples exist at least after Constantine as far as I’m aware, at least as the basic organization of the legion, old or new.
Procopius (who accompanied Belisarius on many campaigns) wrote during the mid-6th century, so I’m curious what you make of him.
Frankly, I’m beginning to wonder if you are more interested in sources who happen to name the right number instead of sources who are the most trustworthy. Of course numbers are not written in stone and unfortunately a lot depends on the interpretation of evidence. I read that you prefer “when a source backs up my Pythagorean research, it would be folly of me to waste that source.” Alternatively, there seem to be many sources that do not do so, and these you seem to put less weight on.
Also you take one source (e.g. Isidore) and accept one figure (a maniple with 200 men) but reject another (200 squadrons ‘which is a corruption’) without telling us why one figure is to be trusted and another isn’t. When one is higher you say there are extra officers, when one is lower you as eagerly add them. And when an absolute primary source tells us 2 turmae, you as eagerly throw in a ‘corruption’ saying he really just meant 2.
Likewise, when a number fits your theory you accept it, but when it’s too high you say there are extra officers which should be rounded off. Yet no source actually mentions whether this is the case, making your acceptance/rejection rather arbitrarily, isn’t it? Or guesswork at best?
I fear you are being rather selective but not on any systematic grounds. But that’s your choice of course.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
