03-11-2017, 10:46 AM
Nathan wrote:
If we accept that Maurikios was indeed the author, then he certainly knew what he was talking about - he was an experienced military commander turned Roman emperor!
And if he isn’t...................
Nathan wrote:
The process that created this structure began in the third century, accelerated under Diocletian and reached its definite form under Constantine and his sons. Essentially what we see is the breakup of larger formations (legions, milliarian cohorts, perhaps alae too) into smaller tactical units. Some of these tactical units kept the names of their parent formations, while others gained new names. Some were perhaps later subdivided, or recombined to make new units.
You won’t get me disagreeing. Nothing comes from a vacuum.
Nathan wrote:
These particular numeri seem to have been auxilia. A numerus auxilium of between c.500 and c.800 men seems quite plausible.
I agree, I have them as amounting to 12 numeri.
Nathan wrote:
Apparently they were not all the same size, or they would produce a round number!
Not necessarily, Sozomen says “about 4,000 men, which may not be a round number. It could be 3,920 men.
Nathan wrote:
This seems unnecessarily complex, and unsupported by evidence as far as I can see.
Not if you take into account that a legion had a horizontal organisation and a vertical organisation, with each producing different unit sizes. Seeing it that way makes it simple, especially when you see the diagram.
Nathan wrote:
A vexillation by this date was a cavalry formation, there is no such thing as a 'tribune cohort' (tribunus cohortis is the tribune of a cohort, i.e. the commander),
Are you sure that the infantry were still not being organised into vexillations? In 462 BC, Dionysius claims that two cohorts did not exceed 1,000 men. This is the first evidence I have of the infantry vexillation organisation, and it remains throughout the history of the Roman legion.
As per my legion of 406 BC, I have termed those men under the command of a military tribune, a tribune cohort. This was down to prevent confusion between the other cohort organisations within the legion.
Nathan wrote:
a numerus was an independent unit not a subdivision, and it seems very unlikely (outside Ammianus and his 'grand style') that cohorts and maniples had any place in the internal structure of later military formations - although I accept that opinions differ on that last point!
A numerus had to be created from something. Taking only part of a vexillation and giving it the name numeru, then calling any unit that had the same number of men a numerus is not beyond being unrealistic. A numerus so far is working out to be one third of a vexillation. I’ve learnt long ago that a legion had a horizontal organisation and a vertical organisation. Not many have come to this realisation.
Nathan wrote:
I think a lot of our confusion and debate on this subject over the years stems from our attempts to force what was perhaps a very simple, flexible, practical and dynamic late Roman military doctrine into what we think the structure of a 'proper' Roman army should be.
The Romans are pragmatic, and any changes would have been simply changes, not dramatic ones. The numbers throughout the primary sources relating to the Late Roman army are coherent, and all show they are coming from a mathematical military structure based on fixed unit sizes, not ad hoc numbers.
From the top of my head, you once mentioned references to the numerus for the principate. Can you provide them? They could be ILS numbers or CIL.
If we accept that Maurikios was indeed the author, then he certainly knew what he was talking about - he was an experienced military commander turned Roman emperor!
And if he isn’t...................
Nathan wrote:
The process that created this structure began in the third century, accelerated under Diocletian and reached its definite form under Constantine and his sons. Essentially what we see is the breakup of larger formations (legions, milliarian cohorts, perhaps alae too) into smaller tactical units. Some of these tactical units kept the names of their parent formations, while others gained new names. Some were perhaps later subdivided, or recombined to make new units.
You won’t get me disagreeing. Nothing comes from a vacuum.
Nathan wrote:
These particular numeri seem to have been auxilia. A numerus auxilium of between c.500 and c.800 men seems quite plausible.
I agree, I have them as amounting to 12 numeri.
Nathan wrote:
Apparently they were not all the same size, or they would produce a round number!
Not necessarily, Sozomen says “about 4,000 men, which may not be a round number. It could be 3,920 men.
Nathan wrote:
This seems unnecessarily complex, and unsupported by evidence as far as I can see.
Not if you take into account that a legion had a horizontal organisation and a vertical organisation, with each producing different unit sizes. Seeing it that way makes it simple, especially when you see the diagram.
Nathan wrote:
A vexillation by this date was a cavalry formation, there is no such thing as a 'tribune cohort' (tribunus cohortis is the tribune of a cohort, i.e. the commander),
Are you sure that the infantry were still not being organised into vexillations? In 462 BC, Dionysius claims that two cohorts did not exceed 1,000 men. This is the first evidence I have of the infantry vexillation organisation, and it remains throughout the history of the Roman legion.
As per my legion of 406 BC, I have termed those men under the command of a military tribune, a tribune cohort. This was down to prevent confusion between the other cohort organisations within the legion.
Nathan wrote:
a numerus was an independent unit not a subdivision, and it seems very unlikely (outside Ammianus and his 'grand style') that cohorts and maniples had any place in the internal structure of later military formations - although I accept that opinions differ on that last point!
A numerus had to be created from something. Taking only part of a vexillation and giving it the name numeru, then calling any unit that had the same number of men a numerus is not beyond being unrealistic. A numerus so far is working out to be one third of a vexillation. I’ve learnt long ago that a legion had a horizontal organisation and a vertical organisation. Not many have come to this realisation.
Nathan wrote:
I think a lot of our confusion and debate on this subject over the years stems from our attempts to force what was perhaps a very simple, flexible, practical and dynamic late Roman military doctrine into what we think the structure of a 'proper' Roman army should be.
The Romans are pragmatic, and any changes would have been simply changes, not dramatic ones. The numbers throughout the primary sources relating to the Late Roman army are coherent, and all show they are coming from a mathematical military structure based on fixed unit sizes, not ad hoc numbers.
From the top of my head, you once mentioned references to the numerus for the principate. Can you provide them? They could be ILS numbers or CIL.
