Rome versus Pyrrhus

[antiochus]

Justin Vernold wrote
I'm not sure if I'm certain what you are asking, but are we trying to determine the size of a legion according to the information available to that historian, or are we trying to determine the actual number of men present on the battlefield?

If a legion was 4800 men rather than 5000 men, then it would not be hard for an ancient historian to write 4800 men. However, no writer does.Therefore, a legion of 4800 men cannot exist. But a legion of 5000 men does exist as the primary sources state it does.

Justin Vernold wrote
If an ancient historian says that there are 5,000 men in a Roman legion, that's fine, but we can't go to him and ask "All the time? Or does that number fluctuate occasionally?"

I believe they are reporting paper strength legions. However, they are inconsistent. Some leave out non combatants others include them.

Justin Vernold wrote
Well that's my point. Even on paper, the size of a US army regiment depends on its mission at any given time. Some only have about 2,000 men, some have over 5,000. They don't even have a standard number of battalions per regiment. It's usually three, but some regiments have four or even five battalions.

I knew I shouldn't have answered that comment about the US army. Sorry but I find making comparisons of ancient armies to modern mechanised armies irrelevant and misleading. What the US army does could have no bearing to the procedures of the Roman army. If there is, can anyone prove it?