Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Roman Legion in late Antiquity
#16
Quote:..............
Finally, the economic problems of the third century onwards demanded that the army change to armour and equipment that was cheaper to make and almost, if not as, effective as earlier styles. The change in equipment may have forced a change in tactics and hence a change in unit structure in different parts of the Empire......

Spears, swords, shields, armour, heavy throwing weapons, light throwing weapons and bows.....

Changes were minor, refinements happened, economics played a part - but nothing really changed in well over 1,000 years. The medieval period eventually saw extremes of plate armour and longbows, but there was no overriding need to change tactics and therefore battlefield organisations until gunpowder - and not much needed then (a Napoleonic French Corp at Waterloo (now including guns) is almost identical to a Polybian Consular army). Only with the advent of rapid-firing machine-guns, modern artillery and tanks did the next revolution in warfare occur.
Reply
#17
Quote:Of course it is - because, apart from the Polybius construct we have nothing else of comparable detail. A century of 80 men (10 x contubernia of 8) with a Centurion, Optio and Signifer.

I don't know the original text. Did Polybius really say, that the optio and the signifer have been supernumerarii?
Afaik, the camps just show 10 rooms plus the room for the centurio. This would mean 81 people per centuria.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas
Reply
#18
Quote:I don't know the original text. Did Polybius really say, that the optio and the signifer have been supernumerarii?
Afaik, the camps just show 10 rooms plus the room for the centurio. This would mean 81 people per centuria.

No, Polybius doesn't say that specifically, but their roles are those of supernumeraries and they are detailed in the same section. I've studied it rather a lot and tried to make sense of the 4,000 and 4,200 men per legion figures - and one interpretation seems to make more sense than any other....at least to me. Smile

That the '200' men that are often probably misinterpreted as being velites (thus many later authors using 1,200 as their figure) are in fact the total number of supernumeraries - being 60 Centurions, 60 Optios, 60 Signifers + 20 'others' (most likely Cornicen's that are otherwise missing, but we believe they must be there somewhere).

With that interpretation then we see the earliest incarnation of the 80-man century (60 Hvy Inf and 20 Velites (half that for small Triarii maniples)). The classic contuberniun/papillo (10of) contains 8 men as normal, as do the stone built equivalents, but the Centurion's tent, let alone the suite of rooms in stone barracks, has more than enough room for 3 (and an office-space).

Given the likely expected roles of the Centurion, Optio & Signifer the minimum number needed to control an 80 man century is 3 (as is the minimum platoon HQ section of the modern era). In the absence of any later information to give evidence against that figure, I see no reason not to assume a strength of 80+3 throughout the period (at full strength).
Reply
#19
Quote:
sonic post=342133 Wrote:..............
Finally, the economic problems of the third century onwards demanded that the army change to armour and equipment that was cheaper to make and almost, if not as, effective as earlier styles. The change in equipment may have forced a change in tactics and hence a change in unit structure in different parts of the Empire......

Spears, swords, shields, armour, heavy throwing weapons, light throwing weapons and bows.....

Changes were minor, refinements happened, economics played a part - but nothing really changed in well over 1,000 years. The medieval period eventually saw extremes of plate armour and longbows, but there was no overriding need to change tactics and therefore battlefield organisations until gunpowder - and not much needed then (a Napoleonic French Corp at Waterloo (now including guns) is almost identical to a Polybian Consular army). Only with the advent of rapid-firing machine-guns, modern artillery and tanks did the next revolution in warfare occur.


I couldn't disagree with you more. Changes in the attitude of the Roman army and the way that army was used changed dramatically between the first and the fourth centuries AD. To base the miltary culture of the different political entities of the first half of the first millenium solely on the basis of the equipment which they used flies against all of the research and conclusions reached by military historians since Keegan's 'Face of War'. If you don't believe that culture had a major part to play in warfare, consider this.

At the Siege of Masada in AD 73 the Romans amassed c.15,000 troops to take a fortress manned by less than 1,000 zealots. After a 2 month siege the citadel was captured by assault, despite the fact that the Romans expected to suffer heavy casualties. In the fourth century AD the future emperor Julian surrounded 600 barbarian raiders in an old, disused fort and starved them out rather than risk heavy losses.

I believe that the change in tactics and strategy from offensive to defensive warfare played a major part in the reforms of the fourth century, based both on the change to defence and the focus changing from attacking Rome's enemies to defending against internal rebellion and not incurring large numbers of casualties on the army. Whereas earlier at the first sign of trouble the old, large legions would be led out to attack the enemies' homes, later the priority became small units spread around the empire, capable only of self defence unless led by a capable military leader, usually the Emperor or a Caesar. In this way the Empire was defended and the threat of revolt (theoretically) minimized.
Ian (Sonic) Hughes
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides, Peloponnesian War
"I have just jazzed mine up a little" - Spike Milligan, World War II
Reply
#20
Quote:the economic problems of the third century onwards demanded that the army change to armour and equipment that was cheaper to make and almost, if not as, effective as earlier styles. The change in equipment may have forced a change in tactics and hence a change in unit structure in different parts of the Empire.

I suspect the changes in arms and equipment probably began much earlier, perhaps in the late second century, and were in a process of constant evolution. The biggest difference, perhaps, was in the shift from the full legion as a tactical unit to the mobile vexillatio, several of which could be combined into a field force. This process appears to begin in the Antonine era, and probably reached its apogee under the tetrarchy. A mobile force would perhaps be a more lightly equipped force, and one in which comparatively junior officers gained a more responsible command role, but it was also cut off from the traditional legion armoury at home base. This might explain the shift from segmented armour, for example, which required skilled craftsmen to repair, to the more easily-repaired mail, scale and even musculata type armours.

The institution of state-run fabricae at centralised locations by Diocletian may therefore have been an attempt to give these mobile new armies the supply of armour and weapons previously provided by the legion fortresses. A different type of armour too, perhaps - the ridge helmet may have been more cost-effective to build on a production line.

Either way, I suspect that the change in tactics came first and the changes in equipment happened in response to it!


Quote:I doubt, that the legions of the limitanei in the 4th century were still about 3000 guys... I am afraid limitanei legions were much weaker.

Regarding my earlier point about the unit numbers of II Traiana in Egypt, I notice that Karl Strobel (in Erdkamp's Companion to the Roman Army) makes the sensible suggestion that the legion's home base was probably still Nicopolis. The numbers of the detachments in the Thebaid would therefore be in addition to the remaining force of the legion at base, and since the detachments number over 1000 men the entire legion must have been larger - perhaps 3000 or more. Strobel also notes another papyrus (Columbia 7.188) dated AD320 which apparently has a vexillatio of equites promoti of II Traiana numbering 264 men. He suggests this was around half the cavalry force of the legion, which might therefore have made up a full quingenary ala (which he numbers as 512 horsemen).

Clearly, if the legion had a component of even 264 cavalry alone, it must have been fairly substantial. But the 4th century is a long and revolutionary period, and the situation under Diocletian or Constantine would have changed greatly by the time of Theodosius!
Nathan Ross
Reply
#21
Quote:The institution of state-run fabricae at centralised locations by Diocletian may therefore have been an attempt to give these mobile new armies the supply of armour and weapons previously provided by the legion fortresses. A different type of armour too, perhaps - the ridge helmet may have been more cost-effective to build on a production line.

Either way, I suspect that the change in tactics came first and the changes in equipment happened in response to it!

Alright, you've got me there. :mrgreen: It is likely that tactics changed first, although it is possible that some of the changes happened simultaneously purely by coincidence, we simply can't tell due to the paucity of the sources, both historical and archaeological.
Ian (Sonic) Hughes
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides, Peloponnesian War
"I have just jazzed mine up a little" - Spike Milligan, World War II
Reply
#22
Nathan is right about the Ridge Helmets. Roman Bowl Spinning techniques often resulted in deformities, meaning high waste product even if the material was cycled back in. 2 and 4 piece bowls, like the Intercisa and Berkasovo Styles, respectively, were more efficient because you didn't have to get rid of all of your produced material.

As to the change in tactics, I support Ian Hughes and Nathan Ross here. The Romans had largely gone from Aggressive assaults to Defensive Warfare due to a change in enemies. Some generals liked to starve the barbarians out, like Constantius III did to the Visigoths, while others preferred to be aggressive, like Aetius' utilization of Ambush tactics and surprise attacks like in the Battle of Mons Colubrarius where a large number of Goths were slain... man the Visigoths can't catch a break these days Tongue
Reply
#23
Quote:
Mark Hygate post=342139 Wrote:
sonic post=342133 Wrote:..............
Finally, the economic problems of the third century onwards demanded that the army change to armour and equipment that was cheaper to make and almost, if not as, effective as earlier styles. The change in equipment may have forced a change in tactics and hence a change in unit structure in different parts of the Empire......

Spears, swords, shields, armour, heavy throwing weapons, light throwing weapons and bows.....

Changes were minor, refinements happened, economics played a part - but nothing really changed in well over 1,000 years. The medieval period eventually saw extremes of plate armour and longbows, but there was no overriding need to change tactics and therefore battlefield organisations until gunpowder - and not much needed then (a Napoleonic French Corp at Waterloo (now including guns) is almost identical to a Polybian Consular army). Only with the advent of rapid-firing machine-guns, modern artillery and tanks did the next revolution in warfare occur.


I couldn't disagree with you more. Changes in the attitude of the Roman army and the way that army was used changed dramatically between the first and the fourth centuries AD. To base the miltary culture of the different political entities of the first half of the first millenium solely on the basis of the equipment which they used flies against all of the research and conclusions reached by military historians since Keegan's 'Face of War'. If you don't believe that culture had a major part to play in warfare, consider this.

At the Siege of Masada in AD 73 the Romans amassed c.15,000 troops to take a fortress manned by less than 1,000 zealots. After a 2 month siege the citadel was captured by assault, despite the fact that the Romans expected to suffer heavy casualties. In the fourth century AD the future emperor Julian surrounded 600 barbarian raiders in an old, disused fort and starved them out rather than risk heavy losses.

I believe that the change in tactics and strategy from offensive to defensive warfare played a major part in the reforms of the fourth century, based both on the change to defence and the focus changing from attacking Rome's enemies to defending against internal rebellion and not incurring large numbers of casualties on the army. Whereas earlier at the first sign of trouble the old, large legions would be led out to attack the enemies' homes, later the priority became small units spread around the empire, capable only of self defence unless led by a capable military leader, usually the Emperor or a Caesar. In this way the Empire was defended and the threat of revolt (theoretically) minimized.

I'm sorry but I could not disagree more with your statement Sonic. The Romans went on the offensive a number of times during the 4th Century. Constantine and his son Constantius II both waged war against the Sasanids. Constantius then warred across the Rhine and Danube, defeating the Goths, Sarmatians and destroying the Limagantes tribe. Julian waged war across the Rhine against the Allemanni and of course he led the disasterous invasion of Sasanid Persian. Valentinian I also waged war across the Rhine and Danube, establishing forts north of the Rhine. Valens campaigned twice across the Danube against the Goths ten years before Adrianopole. In 376 Valens was successfully recruiting from the Goths for a proposed invasion of Sasanid Persia with an army that in all likelihood would have been larger than Julians.

If you read Libanius, Julian, Zosimus and Ammianus you will see that Julian stormed a number of fortified towns and cities during the Roman invasion of Sasanid Persia, Ammianus gives graphic accounts of these attacks, which involved infantry assaults backed up by artillery.

The mainstay of the 4th Century army was still the infantry and it was no better or worse than its predecessors. I am of the belief that the legions of this period were approximately 2000-3000 strong, with the auxilia units being 1000 strong. I am hoping that when the full translation of the Perge fragments is published then that will give us a good idea of the size of the army in the 5th Century, which in turn should give us a very good idea of what the sizes of the legions in the 4th Century were, taking into account that by 374AD the Roman army had been brought back to full strength by Valentinian and Valens.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Reply
#24
Woah Woah Woah Woah Woah.... wait.

What in god's name are these Perge Fragments and where can I get them.
Reply
#25
Quote:What in god's name are these Perge Fragments and where can I get them.

The Military Edict of Anastasius from Perge: A Preliminary Report
Nathan Ross
Reply
#26
This inscription is amazing, why have I not heard of it before? :?
Reply
#27
Is this explanation, taking into account the ambiguities, accurate, then?

"The Roman centuria, or century, numbered between 80-100 men. In the earlier Empire a legion included 600 men and consisted of 6 cohorts, each numbering 500. There is evidence that, in the 4th century, legions grew as small as 1200 soldiers and consisted of 2 cohorts, or organized themselves into smaller units"
Reply
#28
Thank you for all your scholarly input. Would this phrase, then, be accurate, taking into account the ambiguities?

"The Roman centuria, or century, numbered between eighty and one hundred men. In the earlier Empire a legion numbered six thousand men and consisted of cohorts, each numbering five hundred. There is evidence that, in the fourth century, legions grew as small as twelve hundred soldiers and consisted of two cohorts, or organized themselves into smaller units."

Also, at which point or under which Emperor were legions established as consisting of 6000 men?
Reply
#29
Well the Century could have been as low as fourty or as high as eighty to one hundred men. It really is conjectural.
Reply
#30
Quote:at which point or under which Emperor were legions established as consisting of 6000 men?

I think Septimius Severus is supposed to have increased the size of the legion, perhaps just by increasing the cavalry component (equites legionis, later equites promoti when they started operating as detached units).

If you want a brief precis of the current state of theory (!) then something like this might work:

In the earlier imperial period (1st-2nd centuries AD) the century comprised around 80 men, with six centuries making up a cohort and ten cohorts a legion. The emperor Severus increased the size of the legion, but after this point most legions operated in detachments of one or two cohorts. By the 4th century, some of these detachments (vexillations) became legions in their own right, providing a model for the new units of the imperial field army which comprised around 1000 men each.

It's still very general, a bit confusing, and glosses over difficult issues like the size of the later century and the internal organisation of the new 'legions', but it might do, depending what you need it for...
Nathan Ross
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Late Roman Legion size based on the Perge Inscription FlaviusB 11 251 10 hours ago
Last Post: Nathan Ross
  The distribution of Roman military units in Dardania in late antiquity Horeum Margi 0 112 01-12-2023, 10:40 PM
Last Post: Horeum Margi
  Casualty counts in late antiquity. Flavivs Aetivs 16 2,962 10-15-2013, 03:46 PM
Last Post: AMELIANVS

Forum Jump: