12-01-2004, 09:06 PM
"So, if on paper Varus had 14,460 legioniares, can we assume that the entire Roman standing army was about 145,000 men?<br>
This does not seem at all sufficient to patrol, govern, defend and expand the empire in AD 9. Once Britain was invaded, and the empire was at its maximum size in AD 200, how many legionaires were active? How many legions? "<br>
<br>
But the legions were hardly the only forces at the empire's disposal. As was pointed out, there were the auxiliaries (probably more useful for conquest and oppression than administration and policing initially).<br>
Many client kings were allowed to maintain their own forces, frequently turned into auxiliaries whenever the kingdoms lapsed to imperial administration, and those would have been useable for almost any purpose locally. I don't see any client king objecting to some equestrian official breezing in and taking charge, much like the palitikal could in Anglo-India.<br>
We can also assume that at least in some places, there were local militias and/or police forces that could take over patrolling and anti-banditry operations. This may not have been an empirewide arrangement, but there is good evidence for Egypt, Syria and Asia Minor. The urban 'collegia iuvenum' and the ephebiate might also have been a possible source of muscle in real emergencies, but almost certainly had no regular military functions. It would also be interesting to see what happened to the warrior followings of nobles who integrated into Roman rule in the Balkans, Gaul and Britain. I have my suspicions that for a generation or three, these folks were a lot more martial (and a good source of recruits) than we think.<br>
<br>
Soldiers don't have to do everything themselves. <p></p><i></i>
This does not seem at all sufficient to patrol, govern, defend and expand the empire in AD 9. Once Britain was invaded, and the empire was at its maximum size in AD 200, how many legionaires were active? How many legions? "<br>
<br>
But the legions were hardly the only forces at the empire's disposal. As was pointed out, there were the auxiliaries (probably more useful for conquest and oppression than administration and policing initially).<br>
Many client kings were allowed to maintain their own forces, frequently turned into auxiliaries whenever the kingdoms lapsed to imperial administration, and those would have been useable for almost any purpose locally. I don't see any client king objecting to some equestrian official breezing in and taking charge, much like the palitikal could in Anglo-India.<br>
We can also assume that at least in some places, there were local militias and/or police forces that could take over patrolling and anti-banditry operations. This may not have been an empirewide arrangement, but there is good evidence for Egypt, Syria and Asia Minor. The urban 'collegia iuvenum' and the ephebiate might also have been a possible source of muscle in real emergencies, but almost certainly had no regular military functions. It would also be interesting to see what happened to the warrior followings of nobles who integrated into Roman rule in the Balkans, Gaul and Britain. I have my suspicions that for a generation or three, these folks were a lot more martial (and a good source of recruits) than we think.<br>
<br>
Soldiers don't have to do everything themselves. <p></p><i></i>
Der Kessel ist voll Bärks!
Volker Bach
Volker Bach
