11-29-2011, 04:57 AM
Quote:I'd be very, very careful about stating that the legions during the Late Roman period were less than a theoretical strength of 6000 strong. Onur's paper on those Perge stones may throw a curved ball at those whose belief it is that the legion was about 1200 strong, ...Unfortunately, none but a select few have seen this inscription, so we cannot really comment in any sensible way. However, the sheer number of units called legions in the ND almost guarantees that, on the whole, they must have been smaller than imperial legions.
Quote:It's often claimed that the auxilia units in the Late Roman army were only 500 men strong.I think (I may be wrong) that Nicasie suggests 800. In any case, Steven's theory concerns the legions, so auxiliary evidence is irrelevant.
Quote:I have shown that 6000 men can be organised into 60 centuries, 30 maniples and 12 cohorts. And it can also be organised into 10 cohorts of 600 men. Why should the Romans limit themselves to one organisation? ... This then begs the question, why did he use the figure of 6000?12 cohorts?!
hock: And different legions organised in different ways?! hock: I'm not sure why you set such store by Isidore's evidence. We've already pointed out how unreliable he is. On the latter point, you are actually correct: his evidence does raise the question of "why 6000?" But that's a question that you must answer, as it's you who have decided to trust Isidore.
