03-15-2014, 01:37 PM
Quote:....
It's the same word - Legio is the singular, Legiones the plural...........
So there's no difference in the titles of the different kinds of legion - the ND has both Legiones palatinae and legiones riparienses...
That there were different types is pretty uncontroversial. And if one type (the 'field legion' variety) really did have 1000-1200 men, that would seem to be a genuine innovation in late Roman unit structure........
Indeed I wasn't trying to be controversial, nor am I saying that the usage in Latin appeared any different - but simply that the word was used in two different, and delineated as in the ND, contexts.
I don't, however, see that there was any innovation, or indeed actual change in structure - but am simply suggesting that the later Field Army Legio was simply a now permanent example of the previously classic (older and big) legion detachment (vexillatio) of a pair of cohorts - with one of the Tribunes now placed in charge. Such detachments seem to have been the norm, and that's perfectly understandable given the need to keep the (at least a majority) parent legion as a presence on the border.
It's why I also see the move to the limitanei/riparenses back by mobile field armies as a gradual and evolutionary change and neither particularly innovative nor requiring fundamental change.
And for the extra note by Frank - yes indeed, I was suggesting nothing different.
