Rome versus Pyrrhus

[antiochus]

Justin wrote:
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.

How about a fourth possibility.... they are all correct. Isidore (Isid. Etym. IX, 3. 51) states a legion consisted of 60 centuries, 30 maniples and 12 cohorts. Isidore gives the size of a cohort as 500 men. Therefore, 12 cohorts of 500 men amount to 6000 men. Taking Isidore and applying it to Pompey’s 30,000 men, Pompey can form an army of 50 cohorts at 600 men, or 60 cohorts at 500 men. This equates to five legions at 6000 men or six legions at 5000 men. However, the primary sources tell us Pompey elected for five legions, but is it five legions of 6000 men organised into 12 cohorts of 500 men. Maybe Caesar did not have that luxury (enough men to form a legion of 6000 men) and settled for a legion of 5000 men.

Justin wrote:
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.

That is exactly what I am doing with the book. And I do present my research to the university to be attacked. I am widening this field and contacting some academics in England like Professor E. Wheeler to examine my research. I have selected him because he has a reputation for being very critical.

Justin wrote:
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.

If this were correct, then Plutarch or any ancient historian would have no problem stating a legion was 4800 men. Not one ancient historian does so. However, there is no difficulty in the ancient historians claiming legion sizes of 4000 men, 4200 men, 4500 men, 5000 men, 5200 men, 5500 men, 5600 men, 6000 men, 6200 men and 6600 men. So far no one can explain to me why the ancient historians find it difficult to write a legion amounted to 4800 men.

D Campbell:
If I understand Steven correctly, he believes, not only that the Romans levied precise numbers every year, but that these numbers developed and changed throughout history. Personally, I cannot see such a system working under the Principate, with a professional army recruited all over the Mediterranean world.

Well then, we are in agreement. Sometime back in other posting, I wrote with the approach of Principate it becomes hard to track.

D Campbell:
And I think it would even be doubtful for the Late Republic, when individual generals were recruiting on an ad hoc basis from their own geographical areas. But I am intrigued to learn how it can be proven even for the period of the early and middle Republic.

Well in that case, you are going to be in for a surprise. My observation of the postings on this group and many other discussion groups, plus in the many academic journals and books I have read on the Roman army, is the author’s own prejudices block him/her from further their understanding of the Roman army. It is these beliefs, formulated by what you have read that lead one to a dead end. If you wear red glasses, you will see everything as red. To change your perception you will have to remove the glasses.

D Campbell:
So far, all we have is a fairly woolly reference from Ovid, that every time a Roman counted to ten, he started over again. I'm sure there must be more ... isn't there?

Now Mr Campbell, I made gave a general outline of a system of contracting and expanding. I never mentioned Ovid’s ten men. But alas, you do like to redesign what I say. In case you are not aware of a system of expansion and contraction, compare Hyginus’ century of 80 men with Vegetius’ centuries of 110 men. Vegetius legion is 50 or 55 centuries, and earlier legions are 60 centuries. Therefore, early legions have more centuries and a smaller number of men per century, while Vegetius’ legion has fewer centuries and more men per century.

Justin wrote:
But he seems to put an awful lot of faith in these numbers, given that the writers aren't here to answer follow up questions, and he speaks in absolutes; saying things like "a legion of 4800 men cannot exist. But a legion of 5000 men does exist as the primary sources state it does."

I do put a lot of faith in the numbers in the primary sources because they have proven to me to be reliable. All legion numbers integrate with their foundation organisation, which is the Servian constitution. As for absolutes, I am no different to anyone else. Academics speak in absolutes. Take for example Ross Cowan, whom has published a book telling his readers Caesar’s legion numbered 4800 men. So why am I being singled out for speaking in absolutes? When the primary sources state a legion amounted to 4800 men then I will take it as a certainty. I find it interesting that Isidore refers to maniples, as does Tacitus and Ammenius, but no one seems to want to wrestle with this. Caesar makes three references to maniples, so in Ross Cowan’s Caesarean legion of 60 centuries of 80 men, how does the maniple reconcile with such an organisation. Or must we accept this another case of dismissing four ancient writers as being confused or the sources are corrupt.