Posts: 539
Threads: 18
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
8
There is the development and evolution of the Roman Army into the, now known as, Byzantine one where the cavalry became dominant (Maurice even particularly noting that the methods of organising the infantry had not been practised and even forgotten). This has, I believe, been identified as starting possibly with Severus and/or the 'Cavalry Reforms' of Diocletian and/or Gallienus.
Can anyone point me at the sources that support that, with additional reference to the sizes of the early Vexillatio's?
Given that my understanding of Vegetius and his 20-22 Turma of cavalry attached to the legion may be, as he does in other references to the 'ancients' and use of Hastati/Principes/Trarii, linked more to the Republican period (cf a Roman-Ally legion pairing had 1200 cavalry, so average 600 each); I am not convinced he accurately describes a legion of the late 2nd/early 3rd century period prior to the formation of the Field Armies. So, I'm not yet persuaded that the 'increase in cavalry' happened to the Legions from which these 'Vexilatios' were subsequently taken.
If possible, therefore, I'd appreciate any assistance in looking?
Posts: 539
Threads: 18
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
8
Are there no sources? Has all the references to such events been 'interpreted' by more recent writers?
Is this also true about the 'Diocletian doubled the army in size' statement?
Is the reason that I find such things difficult to find, because they don't actually exist but have become accepted?
Posts: 3,616
Threads: 130
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation:
52
Quote:Is the reason that I find such things difficult to find, because they don't actually exist but have become accepted?
Could be, Mark.
I wrote about the cavalry bit here: Ancient Warfare magazine, Vol. II, Issue 6. And the Diocletian bit here: Ancient Warfare magazine, Vol. V, Issue 4. I may be wrong, but it looks as if people are unwilling to engage with such knotty problems.
Posts: 7
Threads: 1
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
0
Mark,
In my opinion, the only reason why you can't find references concerning those supposed cavalry reforms is because they never existed, especially Gallienus' one. The increasing importance of the cavalry in the Roman army was a very progressive phenomenon, which can be dated from the first century AD, as Maurizio Colombo suggested in a very recent article. Ritterling and Alföldy's theory on Gallienus' cavalry reform is based on byzantine sources accustomed to a post-constantinian organization of military institutions. They give distorted informations concerning third century high-officers' careers.
It's a pity that a recent synthesis such as Pat Southern's Late Roman army took up this old fantasist view, which has been disproved by so many scientific works (I can send you the references if you want).
Posts: 3,616
Threads: 130
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation:
52
Quote:... this old fantasist view, which has been disproved by so many scientific works ...
And I thought that I was a voice crying in the wilderness!  hock:
Posts: 7
Threads: 1
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
0
As far as I know, we do not have informations concerning the size of the late cavalry vexillationes, but the estimations vary from 300 to 500. Jones 1964, p.680-682 : 500. Nicasie 1998, p.67-74 : 300-500. Elton 2007, p.279 : c. 600. They are based on papyrus evidences from egyptian tetrarchic alae : Ala Ia Iberorum (P. Beatty Panop., 2, 36 et 16 : 350-360) ; Ala IIa Herculia (reference missing : 210) ; Ala IIIa Assyrorum (ChLA XIII, 660 : 330).
Posts: 15,116
Threads: 415
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
78
Quote:(Maurice even particularly noting that the methods of organising the infantry had not been practised and even forgotten)
That's a literary topos (for the benefit of the reader): the text itself proves quite easily that this knowledge was by no means 'forgotten', as it continues an old military tradition. maurikios added new elements, but the basics are recognisable throughout the history of the Roman army.
Michael is right about Gallienus, there's no evidence for it.
from my short article on Late Roman unit numbers:
Cavalry units
The old style alae numbered 500 and seem to have remained that way. On paper at least. On the basis on the Beatty papyri, Duncan Jones calculated that around 300 AD in the Thebaid (Egypt), a unit of equites was 121 strong, an ala 116 and a cohors 164. These may not have been complete units, or else very much understrength.
Nothing much else is known about cavalry unit strengths. The ala III Assyriorum was organized in old-style 11 turmae, giving it a possible strength of 350 (ChLA XVIII 660). Ammianus mentions that the cataphracti defeated at Strasbourg were 600 strong, which is echoed by Johannes Lydus who says that alae were that number, and turmae 300 but also 500 (De Mag. I.46). Ammianus also mentions two turmae at Amida numbering 700 together (XVIII.8.2). Procopius has various sizes, between 200 and 800 strong (800: Bella VI.5.1, VI.7.25-6). Some units are larger, between 1000 and 1500, but it is unclear if these are units grouped together, or maybe allied forces (1500: Bella V.27.22-3 and VII.34.42). Maurikios mentions cavalry units should be between 300 and 400, but in any case not less than 200 and not above 400; if understrength, they should be combined.
Posts: 539
Threads: 18
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
8
Gentlemen,
Thank you all, that's a big help. 
On a roll now.....how would any of you feel about this 'interpretation' (which is why I would still be keen to track down any original reference):
'Diocletian doubled the Army - but what he actually did is double the legions'?
My interpretation being that, in order to create the beginnings of the Field Armies, he took from each active legion a normal everyday Vexillatio of 2 cohorts, under one of the Tribunes, and it became a Field Army 'Legio Comitatenses' of the 'smaller size' (6 Ordos/Maniples and about 1000 strong). This would have effectively 'doubled' the number of Legions as the Field Army elements were also called Legions. I do not easily believe that the manpower or the money existed to do otherwise.
On a related matter, I (as you probably are aware of now) am unconvinced the Ala were ever 500 and/or up to 1000 strong. I will be, and hope to convincingly, suggesting that the largest standard cavalry unit (operationally) was actually 300 from early 3rdC BC to 5thC AD (Polybian, Later Field Army and Byzantine Tagma there is evidence for, it is only the bit in the middle that is 'truly' missing). One thing I do find a little puzzling in my research however is how the earlier' Turmae of 30 became 3000 by Byzantine times for the same name! hock:
Perhaps I'll get writing soon. 
|
