Roman Legion in late Antiquity

[antiochus]

Mark wrote:
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)).

Mark, can you provide me with a reference of the triarii being in maniples? Thanks in advance

Steven

[AMELIANVS]

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

Very interresting indeed!Thanks.

[sonic]

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.

My fault. I should have said that attitudes were changing during the fourth - as witnessed by Julian's desire not to waste men in 'trivial' battles- and by the fifth it needed a strong leader to fight a major battle. In fact, the fifth century is dominated by sieges and ambushes/'ruses'.

[Mark Hygate]

........
Mark, can you provide me with a reference of the triarii being in maniples? Thanks in advance
..

Ummmm - I think I may be missing something...... :errr:

Polybius Book VI/24 - the Triarii are divided (by their officers) exactly the same way as the Hastati & Principes into maniples each of 2 centuries. In the standard 4,200 legion they are at half the strength of the others, however.

This is now rather OT - and perhaps better in a new thread if desired......

[Mark Hygate]

equites legionis[/i], later equites promoti when they started operating as detached units)................

Looked long and hard and also queried here for such - but as far as I am now aware neither the supposed 'increases of Severus', nor the 'cavalry reforms of Diocletian' have any direct evidence to support them.

Please, please point me at such if that's not true? If you are taking the Vegetius' armchair construct as evidence, then I at least know where you're coming from.

[Mark Hygate]

.............
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. .............

It's not a case of disagreement - but one of accurate terminology.

Tactics - the uses of the arms and armour by sub-units on the battlefield (this is what doesn't need to have changed much)

Operational (Deployment) - dictates the size and uses of units (cohorts, legions, etc) to and from the battlefield and their stationing, also dictated by logistic considerations

Strategy - the committing of armies (sic) to achieve the foreign policy aims and the size of total forces possible given the economy and political will.

Only the latter is affected by culture. I have no disagreement that the uses of the Roman army varied throughout the Roman period - but the actual tactics used did not really need to change, but only gently evolve in relationship to the enemy faced. Fundamentally I see no underlying reason why the basic century needed to change. If there's no reason for change, why should we believe a change? Root cause analysis.

As a note, when it comes to numbers, and, whilst I am theorizing that a century always was 80+3, I am quite happily aware that ancient and modern sources have also long interpreted that it could be 100 (the current normal use of the word is for 100 years, ofc). This is why, depending on the detail an author is using, a standard construct for a 6-century cohort could be detailed as 500 or 600 (and thus a vexillation/field legio of 1,000 to 1,200) and a 10 cohort legion can be 4,000 (Polybius/Livy) or 5,000 (Polybius/Livy and later) or even 6,000, or even more. None of them may be wrong, but all could be mis-representing the same actual base.

[Nathan Ross]

as far as I am now aware neither the supposed 'increases of Severus', nor the 'cavalry reforms of Diocletian' have any direct evidence to support them.

You're right - this idea rests on fairly wobbly foundations! It's Gallienus, I think who is often credited with the reform of the cavalry as a separate 'mobile force', although this idea was recently attacked by Duncan Campbell in Ancient Warfare magazine. Diocletian, supposedly, sent the cavalry detachments back to the frontiers! Brigading together the cavalry components of several legions was no new thing though - Josephus and Arrian report it happening in the 1st-2nd centuries.

Severus certainly reformed the army, doubling the size of the Guard, raising new legions (I-III Parthica) and making the social conditions of military service more attractive - this last may in turn have been intended to boost recruitment and build up legionary numbers, perhaps following the losses of the Antonine era with its plagues and wars. Smith's The Army Reforms of Septimius Severus (Historia, 1972) says nothing about increasing the size of legions, or their cavalry component, however. In fact legions of 6000 men are mentioned under Marius, so perhaps this was always the official 'paper strength'.

The enlarged size of the legion cavalry component does seem to have been a product of the third century though, and some writers (e.g. Karl Strobel) date this to Severus, perhaps on the logical assumption that he was a military reformer anyway, and his only reign was long and stable enough to have introduced such changes - besides which, Severus's new II Parthica legion seems to have included (additional?) specialist troops like lanciarii, and perhaps extra cavalry too, to function as a sort of 'army in miniature'. An inscription from the reign of Alexander Severus shows that the equites of III Augusta were still commanded by an optio equitum, however, rather than a praepositus or even a centurion. So perhaps the enlarged cavalry force that we find with II Traiana in the Egyptian papyrii was indeed a product of the later third century?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

My fault. I should have said that attitudes were changing during the fourth - as witnessed by Julian's desire not to waste men in 'trivial' battles- and by the fifth it needed a strong leader to fight a major battle. In fact, the fifth century is dominated by sieges and ambushes/'ruses'.

Well Sonic is right. After the campaign of Julian for the most part the Attitude changed completely. You still had a handful though that liked offensive tactics, notably Stilicho and Aetius. The 5th century under Aetius experienced more than one set piece battle, all of which were won except for Rimini, just many of them started with an ambush.

Litorious surprised the goths when he had marched his army to Arles (or Narbonne, off the top of my head I don't remember) in 436 and had them arrive in Battle Formation. The goths were surprised, being in the middle of the siege, and were unable to draw up their line properly to engage the Romans, and were routed.

Surprise was an element in such a set piece battle, but engaging a Gothic Army in a set-piece battle would have been considered absurd by most 5th century commanders, especially eastern ones.

Two Set-Piece Battles took place in Africa between Gaiseric and Bonifacius/Aspar, and you have Chalons, you've also got Radagasius' invasion of Italy which was decided by a set-piece battle.

[Nathan Ross]

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.

I just want to pick up on this offensive/defensive point again, as it's interesting, I think.

Leaving aside tactics (it does seem that the battlefield tactics of the later army stressed defensive formations, shield-walls etc, rather than the offensive sword-charges of earlier periods), the Roman army was essentially defensive from the principiate onwards. After Trajan there were few wars of conquest beyond the borders, and Hadrian's policies seemed to echo those of Augustus - a strong frontier manned by legions in permanent bases, rather than aggressive mobility and expansion.

This policy paid off until the series of crises in the late Antonine period, when the large scale movement of legions from the northern frontiers to the east for Verus's Parthian war, coupled with what appears to be increasing cooperation among the northern barbarian peoples (part of a process that led to the great 'confederations' of Franks, Alamanni and Goths) led to devastating invasions and a defensive war that lasted for over a decade.

The use of mobile detachments, which really seems to have taken off during the Marcomannic war, was therefore a way to put together strong 'offensive' field armies without depleting the 'defensive' strength of the legions on the borders, thereby maintaining security over a wide stretch of frontier while allowing for rapid reaction against incursions and reprisal strikes into barbarian territory.

Whether it was Aurelian (with his 'select army' in the east) or Diocletian who brought this system to perfection we can't tell, but in it, I think, lies the seed of all the future developments in army structure into the 4th century, and the eventual institution of the two-tier army of comitatensis and limitanei legions and auxilia, perhaps each maintaining a different internal organisation to reflect their different purpose. This new army, in turn, allowed Constantine and his successors to both maintain the security of the frontiers and mount concerted offensive actions into enemy territory - Constantine's partial reconquest of Dacia in the 330s, for example, was the first dedicated 'imperial expansion' for over a century.

[antiochus]

Mark wrote:
Ummmm - I think I may be missing something......

Amen to that.

Mark wrote:
Polybius Book VI/24 - the Triarii are divided (by their officers) exactly the same way as the Hastati & Principes into maniples each of 2 centuries. In the standard 4,200 legion they are at half the strength of the others, however.

Polybius does not state the triarii were specifically organised into maniples, nor does Livy in his description of the maniple legion. Livy mentions ordines for the triarii, and maniples for the hastati and principes. This is a very important point that everyone overlooks.

Mark wrote:
This is now rather OT - and perhaps better in a new thread if desired......

You bought up the subject of triarii in maniples. I reply and now it’s off topic.

[Mark Hygate]

........You're right - this idea rests on fairly wobbly foundations! It's Gallienus, I think who is often credited with the reform of the cavalry as a separate 'mobile force',..................

Severus certainly reformed the army, doubling the size of the Guard, raising new legions (I-III Parthica) ................
.
In fact legions of 6000 men are mentioned under Marius, so perhaps this was always the official 'paper strength'.

The enlarged size of the legion cavalry component does seem to have been a product of the third century though, and some writers (e.g. Karl Strobel) date this to Severus, perhaps on the logical assumption that he was a military reformer anyway, ..........

, Severus's new II Parthica legion seems to have included (additional?) specialist troops like lanciarii, and perhaps extra cavalry too,...................

A whole number of points there....

The statement that Severus 'doubled the size of the Guard' (whilst I would really appreciate an ancient reference from anyone, I have seen this mentioned before) - could that not equally mean that he 'added to the 10 cohorts of the Praetorian Guard the 10 cohorts of the II Parthica, that he stationed down the road in Alba and thus had 'doubled the 'guard' forces available to him'?' Creating the forerunner of the first central field army of the Palatine....

Assuming you mean the Marius of the 'reforms' (c105BC) - then legions of 60 centuries can easily be read as 60 x 100 and an author (without detailed knowledge) therefore, not entirely unreasonably, equating to 6,000 - hence the need to interpret numbers and thus query their face value.

I do believe that all assumptions of permanently enlarged cavalry components for legions are taken from a strict interpretation of the Vegetius' construct as wholly accurate - which I certainly question now (and will defend as part of my theory). If there are any other references, I would love to know?

In the background of my research I have also come to the adjoining sub-theory that velites/antesignanii/hasta-armed/lanciarii/light-armed set of troops that often pop up (in the sources) represent a continuing and homogeneous element of the century structure (more to follow in the detailed work - that I will somehow finish :whistle: ) - so I don't believe the lanciarii of II Parthica are anything new.

Thus, back on topic, and using the different terms - I see the limitanei legions (old style) on the frontiers (stripped of their cavalry elements), probably under-strength in most cases, many having provided a permanent detachment of a pair of cohorts to form a Comitatenses Legio of 1,000 strong (in 2 x 6 centuries and thus perhaps detailed as 1,200 strong); perhaps retaining a link to those detachments still and occasionally providing additional detachments (Pseudo-Comitatenses), but those legio's would be kept closer to strength.

[Mark Hygate]

..................
Polybius does not state the triarii were specifically organised into maniples, nor does Livy in his description of the maniple legion. Livy mentions ordines for the triarii, and maniples for the hastati and principes. This is a very important point that everyone overlooks...................

Okay, I'll bite!

Please re-read - for I didn't say that he did. :wink:

But, given I'm reading a translation and not the original Greek, please help me understand in what way the opening paragraph of BkVI/24 shows that the Triarii are organised any differently to the others? ie not in sub-unit pairings with 2 Centurions, 2 Optios and 2 Signifers each?

Not again (translation) having picked up on the Livy differentiation, I would be quite happy that he used a different, but I believe very similar and often having the same meaning, term for a maniple at normal half-strength being called an ordo/ordine. That would make sense.

I have come to think my theory (and its adjuncts) might have some merit, but the only way it might become a possibility is from help by people like yourself to understand the detail of the sources we do have, given I'm not able to interpret ancient Greek myself. We may still disagree on resulting interpretations, but the help would be appreciated.

[ValentinianVictrix]

'Thus, back on topic, and using the different terms - I see the limitanei legions (old style) on the frontiers (stripped of their cavalry elements), probably under-strength in most cases, many having provided a permanent detachment of a pair of cohorts to form a Comitatenses Legio of 1,000 strong (in 2 x 6 centuries and thus perhaps detailed as 1,200 strong); perhaps retaining a link to those detachments still and occasionally providing additional detachments (Pseudo-Comitatenses), but those legio's would be kept closer to strength. '

Is there not a tombstone that states the infantryman it belongs to was a member of the Xth cohort of his Legion, and isn't that tombstone dated to the 4th Century? If so that would provide evidence of at least some Legiones retaining the old 10 cohort structure, meaning that the Legiones were in fact 2000 men strong in the Late Empire after the Diocletianic reforms as I have previously stated.

[Mark Hygate]

[quote="ValentinianVictrix" post=342212..............
Is there not a tombstone that states the infantryman it belongs to was a member of the Xth cohort of his Legion, and isn't that tombstone dated to the 4th Century? If so that would provide evidence of at least some Legiones retaining the old 10 cohort structure, meaning that the Legiones were in fact 2000 men strong in the Late Empire after the Diocletianic reforms as I have previously stated.[/quote]

With no concern at all that a Xth cohort may still be in existence (as alluded to previously and yes, the structure still can/could exist) - but why 2,000?

[ValentinianVictrix]

[quote][quote="ValentinianVictrix" post=342212..............
Is there not a tombstone that states the infantryman it belongs to was a member of the Xth cohort of his Legion, and isn't that tombstone dated to the 4th Century? If so that would provide evidence of at least some Legiones retaining the old 10 cohort structure, meaning that the Legiones were in fact 2000 men strong in the Late Empire after the Diocletianic reforms as I have previously stated.[/quote]

With no concern at all that a Xth cohort may still be in existence (as alluded to previously and yes, the structure still can/could exist) - but why 2,000?[/quote]

Because in a post you made you stated this-

'Thus, back on topic, and using the different terms - I see the limitanei legions (old style) on the frontiers (stripped of their cavalry elements), probably under-strength in most cases, many having provided a permanent detachment of a pair of cohorts to form a Comitatenses Legio of 1,000 strong (in 2 x 6 centuries and thus perhaps detailed as 1,200 strong); perhaps retaining a link to those detachments still and occasionally providing additional detachments (Pseudo-Comitatenses), but those legio's would be kept closer to strength. '

Therefore, 10 cohorts comprised of two centuries each equals 2000 men approximately.