08-24-2009, 08:35 PM
Quote: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.
Polybius says a legion had 5,000 men "in times of exceptional danger," but Rome was in an almost perpetual state of warfare. What is "exceptional danger," anyway?
With the benefit of hindsight we can say, for example, that Cannae and Arausio were cases of "exceptional danger," but from Rome's perspective, a lot of smaller incursions might have seemed worse than they actually were.
And if, say, some demagogic Roman consul overhyped some minor incursion and made it seem extraordinarily threatening in order to highlight the necessity of adding more men to his legions, it wouldn't be the first time in history that a leader mongered fear.
So if Cicero's letter said Pompey had 30,000 men, and Caesar said that was five legions (6,000 per legion), that means we have three possibilities:
1- Plutarch's 5,000-man figure is incorrect; the standard size for a legion was actually 6,000 men but Plutarch published flawed information. But this is a pretty weighty claim. We'd better not say this unless we're pretty certain.
2- Plutarch's 5,000-man figure was correct; that's the paper strength the Romans wanted for each legion, but in practice, the consul rounded up as many men as possible if he felt the mission called for it.
3- Cicero's 30,000-man figure was incorrect. Or maybe he was just giving a rough estimate. Again, let's not jump to this conclusion unless we can be certain.
Quote: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?
If the Romans were able to levy the precise number of men they needed on command exactly when they needed them, then this would make them unique in history.
We're talking about recruiting men and procuring equipment, and if you argue that the Romans weren't as constrained (at all?) by the same limits that all armies have always faced, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how the Romans were different. I know that Rome had the most well-organized military in the world (not to mention a very fertile Italian peninsula capable of supporting a large population) and these shortages probably weren't nearly as much of a problem as they were for Rome's opponents, but they still had a volunteer army (during Caesar's lifetime).
Maintaining standing units during peacetime is easier, but even then what you recruit is what you get. And I don't mean to belabor this, we're talking about a military that was almost perpetually at war. Maybe Plutarch's 5,000-man legion was the gold standard that all legions tried to replicate, but if tribes were on the march and only 4,800 men were ready to fight, one might have to make due with a 4,800 man legion.
Perhaps more appropriate than the Rumsfeld quotation is one from another famed strategist, Mike Tyson: "Everybody's got a plan until they get punched in the face."
