08-04-2013, 05:20 PM
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
