The Roman Army of Diocletian

[Robert Vermaat]

Sorry Steven but your explanation does not convince me. I fail to see why your 'experience with the sources' allows you the interpretations you make, ignoring one and using another source, or adding or distracting numbers when they are too low or too high. What I still miss in your argument is not why you think you can make those interpretations, but why you can do so in each particular case. As a historian, I all too often come across modern writers who take such an appraoch and decide they know better. Yet even if that's true (which might well be true of course), the methodical appraoch still commands that you explain WHY a source is wrong. Now of course this is a forum and I would not expect you to write the details of your book here (far from it). But so far I've never encountered in your replies why you think that author X is wrong in case Y, apart from "I think he is wrong". I maintain that your theory lack a methodical approach in that particular sense.

I guess we have to agree to disagree there.

Robert wrote:
Procopius (who accompanied Belisarius on many campaigns) wrote during the mid-6th century, so I’m curious what you make of him.
I’ve been working on Ammianus, Zosimus, Orosius and some other fragments first. Once this is complete I going to reread Procopius. However, if Procopius is going beyond 420 AD then that is my cut off point.

Well, that's my point. You say this about Procopius and Maurice, but you still use Zosimus and Isidore, who are both beyond your cut off point.

My last point remains unanswered: you have not replied to my question about not taking into account a late Roman army reforms of Diocletian, Constantine and even later, where we see a new model army being formed that does no longer conform to the numbers or organisation of the Principate (nor of the Vegetian legion). This army reform plays havoc 9in my opinion) with your theory about numbers (at least so far). Looking forward to that!