Number of legions at Zama

[Steven James]

Mark wrote:

If the '16000' at Zama are supposed to be a full-strength Polybian standard Consular Army then it would be represented as either 16000 or 16800 and with a total of 2400 Cavalry - assuming the cavalry are at full strength; something the Romans are not always seemingly able to achieve during the Punic Wars, but which is no surprise.

 

Do people actually believe the ancient historians were utilizing such detailed records that include the casualty figures? I have found nothing to support this. Even the Roman replacement system, as can be found in Livy’s campaigns of 192 BC, to the Third Macedonian War, of which there are dozens and dozens of examples, just follow the Roman standardized system of replacement. Livy does say these troops were replacing the older troops. This should not be interpreted to be the triarii, but the oldest troops in each property class of which there are five property classes to a legion.

 

Mark wrote:

It also strikes me as more than likely that some ancient authors use a figure of 6000 men per legion because they multiply 60 centuries by 100, which is the number that a century became known by at the time they wrote.

 

There are a few examples of this happening, but not all. As to Livy’s figure of 6,200 infantry at Zama, I have written that this also includes the 70 centurions, 70 optiones, 70 artificers, 70 musicians and 540 cavalry. I have found many examples of the infantry for a legion also including the cavalry. At Zama, I state that each legion had 5,400 infantry, a claim that Livy makes for the size of the legions at Magnesia (quina milia et quadringenos). So the 5,400 man legion pops up again.

 

In my paper on Scipio’s army and fleet, for anyone that has read it, I do address all the numbers given by various ancient historians and show how they are all intertwined. It is not a matter of who is right or wrong, but an understanding of their methods. I do not nor have I cherry picked the numbers to valid my point of view. And yet, both you and Nick, to arrive at your conclusions, are cherry picking. Not once do you then explain the differing numbers given by other ancient historians. Nick spends more time and energy in justifying why everyone but Polybius should be ignored, rather than trying to understand them. You both do this to maintain deeply held views that only Polybius is reliable. However, when it suits your case, you have no qualms in labeling some of Polybius figures that do not agree with you narrative as being incorrect. You both just bash squares into round holes.

 

A legion has 1,200 velites. However, if 20 velites are allocated to each century, as Mark has commented, and of which I fully agree, then if 600 triarii (10 centuries each of 60 triarii), were allocated to guarding the camp, and those 200 velites attached to the triarii were also allocated to guarding the camp, then the legion is left with 1,000 velites. So maybe the differing numbers are all about doctrine.

 

And speaking of doctrine, everyone seems stuck on a consul having four legions of 5,000 men. Well does he on every occasion? What if he decided due to necessity, to change his four legions of 5,000 men to five legions of 4,000 men? Has anyone besides myself considered this option?

 

The Romans have a lot of military doctrines that unfortunately, have confused many an ancient historian.

 

Ok, I provided proof of Polybius’ use of numbers for Utica. Every time I post evidence it gets ignored. Why is that? Are you Mark, willing to reply to my Utica research?