03-07-2014, 03:13 AM
Adrian
If you look at Ammianus' account of the Battle of Argentoratum in AD357 then a strict interpretation of the numbers of men present could be, based on Vegetius's unit numbers and Ammianus' figures plus that found in Zosimus
Julian’s army is given at 13,000 men. I have played around with the Julian’s OB and come up with the figure of 13,200 men. I have based it on the mathematical principles of this time, which is governed by the number 600.
12,000 infantry
1200 cavalry (of which 200 are allocated as Julian’s bodyguard).
antiochus wrote:
Ammianus states that he was accompanied by “12 legions under the general Terentius. (Ammianus, 27 12 16) 12 legions at 2000 men = 24,000 men or 14,400 men at 1200 men per legion. Would a force of 24,000 legionaries be too large for this campaign?
Nathan replied:
That's an interesting point, yes. Terentius would seem to be the dux Armeniaca, and in the ND this official commands three legions (XV Apollinaris, XII Fulminata and I Pontica). The first two of these are old principiate formations, and formed the main military force of the old senatorial governors of Cappadocia (Arrian being the most famous one - both appear in his 'array against the Alans' - his presumed order of battle might suggest a good comparison for Terentius's expedition). The third is probably a tetrarchic foundation.
Please understand this is only an exercise in playing with numbers. Three legions of the principate number 4800 men (60 centuries each of 80 men), thereby giving a total of 14,400 men and when divided by 12 legions amounts to each legion numbering 1200 men.
Nathan wrote:
Yes, he says they 'had 6000 men apiece' (I.17). He then goes on to talk about Diocletian and Maximian coming to the throne, so the numerical figure is pre-tetrarchic;
I’m 100 percent in agreement. At when the legion of 6000 men was abolished to smaller legions has everything to do with the secular games. Diocletian’s reign coincides with the time frame with the end of a secular age and this allows him to legitimately make any changes both social and military to the Roman system without violating one religious principle or law. According to Zosimus, “from the consulate of Chilo and Libo, (204 AD) in which Severus celebrated the secular games, or rites, to the ninth consulate of Dioclesian, (304 AD) and eighth of Maximianus, (304 AD) was a hundred and one years.”
Zosimus claims a secular age was 110 years and then has 100 years. The primary sources either have 110 or 100 years. Censorinus states for his time (298 AD) and in the past, the Romans were not sure what the time frame of a secular age should be. According to my research, which accords with the Pythagorean ages, Severus introduces the 6000 man legion that Vegetius describes. I believe during his reign, Diocletian abolished legions of 6000 men for smaller legions. After all, as I previously stated, he is permitted to make these reforms. This would mean the 6000 man legion (or the 5500 or 5000 man legion is can convert to) only lasted less than 100 years. However, the question is did the 6000 man legion come into full effect throughout the empire or did the legion of the principate remain in some sectors of the Roman empire (see previous “playing with numbers.”).
History has shown us that when a government replaces another, the new government wants to make its mark and introduce their own concepts and ideas on how things should be run. New CEO’s are the same and can sometimes destroy something that was working. So Diocletian was no different and used the end of the secular age to make his changes.
Nathan wrote:
I confess that I'm not especially a believer in magic numbers of any sort in this debate! I suspect that unit sizes were fairly random within certain parameters (and probably had been throughout Roman history...)
The concept of random unit sizes implies a system of chaos. The primary sources show the Romans were extremely organised. Between the writings of Gellius’ legion of 10 cohorts, 30 maniples and 60 centuries and Isidore’s 6000 man legion of 10 cohorts, 30 maniples and 60 centuries tells us the same organisation prevailed over a wide time period. The fact the 4800 men legion and the 6000 man legion can be divided by 10 cohorts, 30 maniples and 60 centuries should be obvious to any historian. Also in Ammianus and Zosimus, there is a pattern of the number 300 being dominant, which to me is a strong indication of a precise military organisation being adhered to.
Nathan wrote:
Actually I tend to think that none of these units are cohorts - Claudian is using poetic terms. The Ioviani and Herculiani are palatine legions, the rest are palatine auxilia, each an auxilium or a numerus... whatever that means!
With all due respect Nathan, I do not understand your reasoning. If there is no understanding of what a auxilium or numeru is, then it cannot be ruled out that they could be organised into cohorts. So far I have no proof that Claudian is wrong in using the terms maniple or cohort. What I have been presented over the years with is just personal opinions about the trustworthiness of some ancient historian. Academia has their list of favourite ancient historians based on who is reliable and who isn’t. I refuse to work this way as I believe it is extremely negative and restrictive. If Claudian uses the terms maniple and cohort then I am more than happy to work with Claudian rather than against him. And why not, what have I got to lose?
If you look at Ammianus' account of the Battle of Argentoratum in AD357 then a strict interpretation of the numbers of men present could be, based on Vegetius's unit numbers and Ammianus' figures plus that found in Zosimus
Julian’s army is given at 13,000 men. I have played around with the Julian’s OB and come up with the figure of 13,200 men. I have based it on the mathematical principles of this time, which is governed by the number 600.
12,000 infantry
1200 cavalry (of which 200 are allocated as Julian’s bodyguard).
antiochus wrote:
Ammianus states that he was accompanied by “12 legions under the general Terentius. (Ammianus, 27 12 16) 12 legions at 2000 men = 24,000 men or 14,400 men at 1200 men per legion. Would a force of 24,000 legionaries be too large for this campaign?
Nathan replied:
That's an interesting point, yes. Terentius would seem to be the dux Armeniaca, and in the ND this official commands three legions (XV Apollinaris, XII Fulminata and I Pontica). The first two of these are old principiate formations, and formed the main military force of the old senatorial governors of Cappadocia (Arrian being the most famous one - both appear in his 'array against the Alans' - his presumed order of battle might suggest a good comparison for Terentius's expedition). The third is probably a tetrarchic foundation.
Please understand this is only an exercise in playing with numbers. Three legions of the principate number 4800 men (60 centuries each of 80 men), thereby giving a total of 14,400 men and when divided by 12 legions amounts to each legion numbering 1200 men.
Nathan wrote:
Yes, he says they 'had 6000 men apiece' (I.17). He then goes on to talk about Diocletian and Maximian coming to the throne, so the numerical figure is pre-tetrarchic;
I’m 100 percent in agreement. At when the legion of 6000 men was abolished to smaller legions has everything to do with the secular games. Diocletian’s reign coincides with the time frame with the end of a secular age and this allows him to legitimately make any changes both social and military to the Roman system without violating one religious principle or law. According to Zosimus, “from the consulate of Chilo and Libo, (204 AD) in which Severus celebrated the secular games, or rites, to the ninth consulate of Dioclesian, (304 AD) and eighth of Maximianus, (304 AD) was a hundred and one years.”
Zosimus claims a secular age was 110 years and then has 100 years. The primary sources either have 110 or 100 years. Censorinus states for his time (298 AD) and in the past, the Romans were not sure what the time frame of a secular age should be. According to my research, which accords with the Pythagorean ages, Severus introduces the 6000 man legion that Vegetius describes. I believe during his reign, Diocletian abolished legions of 6000 men for smaller legions. After all, as I previously stated, he is permitted to make these reforms. This would mean the 6000 man legion (or the 5500 or 5000 man legion is can convert to) only lasted less than 100 years. However, the question is did the 6000 man legion come into full effect throughout the empire or did the legion of the principate remain in some sectors of the Roman empire (see previous “playing with numbers.”).
History has shown us that when a government replaces another, the new government wants to make its mark and introduce their own concepts and ideas on how things should be run. New CEO’s are the same and can sometimes destroy something that was working. So Diocletian was no different and used the end of the secular age to make his changes.
Nathan wrote:
I confess that I'm not especially a believer in magic numbers of any sort in this debate! I suspect that unit sizes were fairly random within certain parameters (and probably had been throughout Roman history...)
The concept of random unit sizes implies a system of chaos. The primary sources show the Romans were extremely organised. Between the writings of Gellius’ legion of 10 cohorts, 30 maniples and 60 centuries and Isidore’s 6000 man legion of 10 cohorts, 30 maniples and 60 centuries tells us the same organisation prevailed over a wide time period. The fact the 4800 men legion and the 6000 man legion can be divided by 10 cohorts, 30 maniples and 60 centuries should be obvious to any historian. Also in Ammianus and Zosimus, there is a pattern of the number 300 being dominant, which to me is a strong indication of a precise military organisation being adhered to.
Nathan wrote:
Actually I tend to think that none of these units are cohorts - Claudian is using poetic terms. The Ioviani and Herculiani are palatine legions, the rest are palatine auxilia, each an auxilium or a numerus... whatever that means!
With all due respect Nathan, I do not understand your reasoning. If there is no understanding of what a auxilium or numeru is, then it cannot be ruled out that they could be organised into cohorts. So far I have no proof that Claudian is wrong in using the terms maniple or cohort. What I have been presented over the years with is just personal opinions about the trustworthiness of some ancient historian. Academia has their list of favourite ancient historians based on who is reliable and who isn’t. I refuse to work this way as I believe it is extremely negative and restrictive. If Claudian uses the terms maniple and cohort then I am more than happy to work with Claudian rather than against him. And why not, what have I got to lose?
