The Roman Army of Diocletian

[Robert Vermaat]

Also you take one source (e.g. Isidore) and accept one figure (a maniple with 200 men) but reject another (200 squadrons ‘which is a corruption’) without telling us why one figure is to be trusted and another isn’t.

First of all Steven I would appreciate it if you take the personal tone out of your next reply to my posts. We are discussing a topic here, and of course we can both state that we disagree with the other’s methods, and why we do so. But I resent being accused of ‘having an agenda’ , ‘bending posts’, or trying to ‘discredit’ you. None of these are based on reality. In fact I think it does not befit this forum. Nonetheless I will try to reply to your questions in the proper manner.

First of all your remarks about quoting though. As I am an opponent of ‘mile-long’ replies I have tried to ‘condense’ my replies, in order to make them more readable. In fact, that is what we prefer here in this forum, because it makes discussions easier to follow for those interested.

Robert wrote:
Sorry Steven but your explanation does not convince me.
Well as you have your own agenda this does not surprise me.

No doubt you can share with the forum what my agenda is, and the proof of where you picked up the information.

Robert wrote:
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.
Robert I don’t see why you have to resort to bending my previous post to discredit me. I explained my method of introducing sources in stages. If Ammianus and Zosimus write about the battle of Strasbourg, then I use them, regardless of Zosimus living in the 6th century. Because I have stated I have not employed Maurice or Procopius until I am ready, you use this to accuse me of “ignoring one and using another source,” of which you are seriously mistaken. Next I bought into the discussion about the rounding of numbers. I gave mathematical examples and now you are accusing me of “adding or distracting numbers when they are too low or too high.”

I fully appreciate that you do not take all the material at once, and that some sources come later. That is not my point, even though it seems strange to me that you build an hypothesis without reading some sources – would it not be much easier to read all the material available before you draw up your conclusions?

No, I did not ‘bend your post’, I merely reacted what you wrote. You never stated that you were going to use Maurice, in fact 3 weeks ago you answered me “Maurice is too late for my time frame.” After which I reminded you that an author like Isidore is also from that period yet you make use of his writings. That is why I wrote about using one source while ignoring another, for reasons that I do not understand.
So please Steven, read your own posts before you are going to accused me of bending yours.

Finally the rounding of numbers. Repeating myself here (you are not the only one who seems to have to do that Steven), I have expressed my befuddlement about your methods. No, I do not think that this is out of the question and yes, I think that some authors surely did round off numbers. But my reply to you was about how you knew when and how to round off numbers and when not to. That was my question to you.

Repeated:
“Also you take one source (e.g. Isidore) and accept one figure (a maniple with 200 men) but reject another (200 squadrons ‘which is a corruption’) without telling us why one figure is to be trusted and another isn’t. When one is higher you say there are extra officers, when one is lower you as eagerly add them. And when an absolute primary source tells us 2 turmae, you as eagerly throw in a ‘corruption’ saying he really just meant 2.
Likewise, when a number fits your theory you accept it, but when it’s too high you say there are extra officers which should be rounded off. Yet no source actually mentions whether this is the case, making your acceptance/rejection rather arbitrarily, isn’t it? Or guesswork at best?”

You have replied to this question, no need to go into that again. I would try to find out IF Ammianus (for instance) rounded off numbers, why he would do so and if he did so every time. If that cannot be established, I would be very careful with statements like ‘Ammianus did so and so’. As I’ve said a number of times, I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying that you do not convince me. Is that a reason to become personal?

Can you prove that Ammianus’ figure of 700 cavalry is not rounded from 660 cavalry (20 squadrons)? Can you prove that Zosimus figure of about 360 is not rounded from 330 (10 squadrons). [..]

Of course I can’t, but that’s turning things around. Why bring this up again? My question to you was how you came to the conclusion that you could round the numbers, you gave your reply, after which I replied that you did not convince me. I stick to that – of course anyone can read a number and round it off, higher or lower, or not; one can also accept that the number is real. You are entitled to your conclusions, but I don’t accept your reasons. My reasons for not accepting your solutions lay in the fact that your methods seem too random to me, and rather more governed by a need to fit your theory than based on a systematic approach. Where’s the problem in that? You can repeat them here but that would be against your wishes, which is fine. Then why make my disagreement a personal matter involving accusations?

You and my other opponents, always ignore or refuse to further discuss any empirical data I present, preferring to bend to your advantage trivial matters.

Well, I am going to ignore the generalization here, although I really think that some rather interesting conclusions can be drawn from this statement.

What’s your method Robert? From your postings over the years as I am aware you have a tendency to dismiss sources because the author in your opinion is unreliable.

No doubt you are going to tell the rest of the forum how you came to this analysis of my person, quoting the many posts I made ‘over the years’.

My method (in a much abbreviated nutshell) is that of the historian Steven. Study the source, the writer and the material. Try to determine the reason for a source, because that also determines credibility. If a source is close® to the event, it’s preferable to a source further away from the event, unless that source quotes an earlier one. If a source makes conflicting statements, it is to be considered less trustworthy about statements which cannot be judged by other means (hence my distrust of Vegetius). If a source gives facts (dates, names, numbers) always take these at face value unless you have cross-references from other credible sources that give you reason for doubt.

You talk about the army numbers in the primary sources but you don’t go into any serious detail about small unit organisation, except to say you’re suspicious of those maniple references.

That is not the discussion here. I can, but please set up another discussion, this one is becoming derailed as it is.

Robert wrote:
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 approach and decide they know better.
To your question about why I can make interpretation in each particular case is because I have more tools at my disposal than do you. Like many others you are still floundering about whether Vegetius legion was mythical or not, or in what time frame did it represent. Because I have those questions already answered for me, more doors keep opening.

So you are saying that because you have accepted Vegetius as a source which is correct in all the numbers, you ‘have more tools at your disposal’? Well, that’s fine of course, but I’m sure that does not mean that everyone who does not accept Vegetius in that respect has a problem? Because myself and a great many historians do not share your conclusion. I’m sorry if that hinders this discussion but that’s how things are. We differ in opinion.

Robert wrote:
Yet even if that's true (which might well be true of course), the methodical approach 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).
Then if you believe the above then why are you passing judgment on my methodology when you do not have all the facts?

It’s quite simple Steven. You make a conclusion, I ask you how you arrived at that conclusion, you answer me by telling me how and I tell you that I do or do not agree. In case of the latter you then answer me that I cannot pass judgment on your methods ‘because I do not have all the facts’?
Why, then, did you not give me those facts when I asked you about your methodology? I can only base my reply on what you tell me so, yes, I pass judgment on your methodology because you did explain it to me. If you withheld information please do not balm anyone else for that, I can only react to what you give me.

As I previously stated, I am doing an investigation as to whether numbers in Ammianus can be linked back to the Vegetius legion.

Well that’s no doubt a nice and worthy investigation, although I would have problems with that, as 1) I do not accept Vegetius as trustworthy in that aspect (although I am fully aware that I could be wrong) and 2) I do not see any evidence for the ‘Vegetian legion’ before Ammianus or even before Vegetius, who wrote about a century after Ammianus. But that’s me and really, perhaps you are on to something, I’ll await your final conclusions.

Robert wrote:
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 (in my opinion) with your theory about numbers (at least so far). Looking forward to that!
Actually you never answered my question. However, I find your line of questioning tiring as I have to continuously repeat myself.

And so you are going to make me repeat myself in turn. Cute.

I’ve explained what I am doing with Vegetius and Diocletian by determining if the Vegetius legion organisation was the platform for the Diocletian reforms. Nothing comes from a vacuum. As to Constantine, yes Robert, as you place so much importance on the reforms of Constantine, let’s talk about Constantine. So what did Constantine do to the army organisation? I’m not referring to the army as a whole, but maybe you could state what Constantine actually did. Do the primary sources inform us about changing the unit organisations and what those changes are? Did he change the legion from 1200 men to 800 men? Or does the primary sources state Constantine did introduce the smaller legion? Hugh Elton writes that “Constantius’s army was similar to that of the other Tetrarchs, Diocletian, Maximian, and Galerius.” “The Cambridge Companion to Constantine” page 325.

Well at least we are on topic again, so I will answer this barrage. No doubt you know that no one is really sure who instigated the reforms that gave us the late Roman army as we know it. We are not sure whether it was Diocletian, Constantine or even both who are behind it, or if not some reforms predated or postdated them. What we do know are certain aspects, such as the split into seniores and iuniores, which most likely postdates Diocletian. Or the removal of military forces from the provincial governors, which is ascribed to Constantine.

But returning to my original question, your reply about the ‘Vegetian legion’ possibly being the platform for the Diocletianic reform (in regard to my question about the numbers of the late Roman army), I cannot agree. Maybe the ‘Vegetian legion’ did consist of 6000 men, let’s accept that for the sake of the argument (actually Vegetius mentions 6100 infantry and 726 cavalry-II.6), and perhaps it even predated Diocletian, and perhaps by the mid-4th century there were even a few units still 6000 strong. Let’s accept that. But it’s generally agreed that these large legions were no longer the norm in the Late Roman army. What we see are the much smaller units, You can of course hypothesise about Julian commanding legions of 1200 men, but Ammianis only mentions infantry units numbering 300, 500, 800, 1000 and 1500 (XVII.1.4, XVIII.2.11, XXIV.1.6, XIV.1.2, XXIV.6.4, XXV.6.13-15, XXV.7.3). Some scholars even come to the conclusion that it is possible that Late Roman units did not have fixed establishment strengths at all, but varied between a certain minimum and maximum according to need. To me that is more attractive as a hypothesis than a fixed model which governs everything from the Bronze Age to medieval times.