The Roman Army of Diocletian

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I’ve explained what I am doing with Vegetius and Diocletian by determining if the Vegetius legion organisation was the platform for the Diocletian reforms.

Vegetius writes 100 years after Diocletian...

For the most part here I have to agree with you though. regarding your research methods. You cannot just dismiss a source because it is "unreliable." Cross-referencing the "unreliable" source with more contemporary or "reliable" authors (if you can call any author of late antiquity reliable...) is the best way to look at a source, rather than dismissing it.

For myself there is no clear evidence that the legions during the 4th century were 1200 strong. This I believe was a figure dreamed up by historians who refused to believe that the legions could be larger than this at that stage of the Late Roman Empire. I eagerly await the full documentation concerning the translation of the Perge fragments as there is tantalising evidence to suggest the legions even upto the 450's-470's were over 2000 men strong.

There is also no evidence that the internal make up of the legion had troops divided into 'light', 'medium' and 'heavy' infantry'. I agree that there was probably a percentage of each legion who acted as skirmishers, the rest would have been all armed and armoured exactly the same. As you admit to not being fully up to speed with the Late Roman army you may be unaware that the Roman infantry, both legionarii and Auxilia, could act in a number of roles as the situation dictated. There are numerous examples where legionary and auxilia troops were tasked with special operations and became 'light-armed', which Ammianus calls 'expediti'. This shows how versatile the troops were at this stage.

Both excellent points. I am eagerly awaiting the Perge inscriptions as it will also give more clues into how Aetius' Roman Army may have been organized and operated.