Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Changes in the Roman Army
#46
Quote:Now, to therefore address Frank's point succinctly....

The Later Roman drift (and then Byzantine), and indeed change, towards the tactics they chose to use were influenced by the enemies they faced - particularly more and more cavalry oriented. Hence they went back to predominantly spear use and, also with the enemies, required greater bow use.

None of those changes, however, necessarily required a basic change to the unit organisations (all of which were embedded in tried and tested logistic support functions - I will also suggest people never forget as even real-life Generals rather like to!). Things could have changed and there is some evidence of minor change; but I do intend to suggest that there might well not have been.

My critics was about the high level of abstraction you used. Of course we always had an army composed of building blocks with a center and wings. With melee infantry, light infantry, range weapon infantry and cavalry of different types. And their position on the battlefield did not change that much either in 2000 years from 500 BC until 1500 AD. But on this high level of abstraction nothing changes that much anyways.

You yourself commit, that there was a change in tactics and equipment in the late roman army, which was mainly caused by the different tactics of the enemies. Also looking to the germans. They improved their military capabilities in the first 300 years since Augustus significantly.

I agree, that the change in tactics on the battlefield, grand strategy and equipment has not caused necessarily a change in the organisation of the army. I guess, that the changes in roman society, e.g. looking to the classes and their role and importance in 1st, 3rd and 4th century had much more impact on the armies organisation. Also the separation of civil and military administration or the introduction of the annona militaris based on a barter economy for army supply of the army had its impact.

As mentioned above, this might have led to the situation, that the legion, which was the former core of the combined military and civil administration was now reduced to its pure tactical military role. Even supply and logistics for the army group was not longer part of the legions role. And so it was consecutive, that the legion was stripped down to a unit of about 1000-1200 perhaps 2000 men. Because this size was much more appropriate in the new late roman exercitus. And finally a commander of a legion (praefect) was not ranked very differently than a commander of an auxilia cohort (tribune) anymore.

It was a mix of tactical needs (enemies) and changes in society and economy, which made the former big traditional legion useless and drove the change of the armies organisation. Not just tactical or military needs.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas
Reply
#47
Quote:...................
As mentioned above, this might have led to the situation, that the legion, which was the former core of the combined military and civil administration was now reduced to its pure tactical military role. Even supply and logistics for the army group was not longer part of the legions role. And so it was consecutive, that the legion was stripped down to a unit of about 1000-1200 perhaps 2000 men. Because this size was much more appropriate in the new late roman exercitus. And finally a commander of a legion (praefect) was not ranked very differently than a commander of an auxilia cohort (tribune) anymore...................

Understood and agreed, buit with a single caveat - my firm belief being that there are two distinct usages of a similar word, which I delineate as follows:

- the 'old' Imperial Legion, now in its generally fixed location(s) on the border, organised in a similar style to those of the first 300 years of the Imperial period (but likely without cavalry component and probably even the expanded first cohort - ie back to the legion structure of the Late Republic), but in many cases reduced by detachments (old style vexillatios) and commanded by Prefects (cf the Egyptian ones of the Early Imperial period), given that they were no longer suitable Patrician positions.

- and the Field Army Legio of the Palatine and Comitatenses, formed originally from similar detachments and thus 1000 strong (of 12 centuries in two cohorts, but effectively now a single unit, and thus often quoted as 1,200) commanded by a Tribune.

in a local campaign, or an emergency, the border legions could indeed still furnish additional detachments as Legio Pseudo-comitatenses, some of which became permanent Comitantenses.

IMO
Reply
#48
Quote:Understood and agreed, buit with a single caveat - my firm belief being that there are two distinct usages of a similar word, ...

Well, this is exactly the mother of all questions: How big was the legio limitanei? Was it also down to about 1000 men, after centuries of vexillationes not coming home anymore? Or was it still bigger, at least in average?

I say: There was no need for a legion bigger than a cohors millaria anymore, even not for the limitanei. But thats not evidence.

Without a solid answer to this question, every extrapolation of the strength of the late roman army based on the Notitia has to fail.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas
Reply
#49
Quote: two distinct usages of a similar word - the 'old' Imperial Legion - and the Field Army Legio

It's the same word - Legio is the singular, Legiones the plural. Legionis is the genitive, found in the ND as, for example, praefectus legionis - 'prefect of the legion'.

So there's no difference in the titles of the different kinds of legion - the ND has both Legiones palatinae and legiones riparienses...

That there were different types is pretty uncontroversial. And if one type (the 'field legion' variety) really did have 1000-1200 men, that would seem to be a genuine innovation in late Roman unit structure...


Quote:they were no longer suitable Patrician positions.

'Patrician' means something else by the late Roman period. The earlier legates were senatorial propraetors and proconsuls - some of them were indeed patricians, but most were plebian.
Nathan Ross
Reply
#50
And furthermore, the praefectus legionis became the rule during Gallienus reign in the mid 3rd century. That was rather a political decision or lack of senatorial personell. Actually Severus already started to appoint equestrian legion commanders.

I guess, in the 4th century, the commander of a border legion was still called praefectus, because since Gallienus this was the former home legion of the vexillationes. New field army legions were often build from these vexillationes. A vexillatio was usually commanded by a tribune. And after this vexillatio was renamed to legio, when it became an independent field army legion, the title of tribune for the commander was retained.

But even these 2 different titles for commanders of a legion mean nothing. It is no evidence for different strength of these 2 legion types. It just shows, that roman tradition was still strong.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas
Reply
#51
Quote:....
It's the same word - Legio is the singular, Legiones the plural...........

So there's no difference in the titles of the different kinds of legion - the ND has both Legiones palatinae and legiones riparienses...

That there were different types is pretty uncontroversial. And if one type (the 'field legion' variety) really did have 1000-1200 men, that would seem to be a genuine innovation in late Roman unit structure........

Indeed I wasn't trying to be controversial, nor am I saying that the usage in Latin appeared any different - but simply that the word was used in two different, and delineated as in the ND, contexts.

I don't, however, see that there was any innovation, or indeed actual change in structure - but am simply suggesting that the later Field Army Legio was simply a now permanent example of the previously classic (older and big) legion detachment (vexillatio) of a pair of cohorts - with one of the Tribunes now placed in charge. Such detachments seem to have been the norm, and that's perfectly understandable given the need to keep the (at least a majority) parent legion as a presence on the border.

It's why I also see the move to the limitanei/riparenses back by mobile field armies as a gradual and evolutionary change and neither particularly innovative nor requiring fundamental change.

And for the extra note by Frank - yes indeed, I was suggesting nothing different.
Reply


Forum Jump: