Late Roman Unit Sizes

[Mark Hygate]

.............You are Vegetius reincarnated!

That is very flattering, thank you - but more seriously.....

Trying to understand Vegetius is very important indeed and, I hope that when you dissect and critique my 'theory', you will see why I am more than happy to see Vegetius' interpretation of what he'd like a legion to return to/be is based upon completely sound principles, but also a few misunderstandings and, most importantly, that it seems more than likely that the 'Vegetian Legion' never existed.

...........

For pretty much a 1000 years+ the general nature of arms and armour didn't change - so why would the structures?

But they do change. We see a strong shift in Roman arms and equipment from the late third into the fourth centuries. ..........

This is perhaps (although I would not be surprised to know it has happened before) a whole area for a new thread; but is certainly apropos to have here.....

For I have to fundamentally disagree:

- armour is armour however much or little or however constructed, it's just a covering that protects more than clothes

- a shield is just a shield, whatever shape or size

but significantly when it comes to dealing the damage in the first place...

- a sword is just a sword, whether it's a dagger, sax, falchion, gladius, spatha or two-handed greatsword

- a spear is just a spear whether it lengthens to a pike/sarissa/kontos or shortens to an assegai (and there are the interesting mixes of falx, naginata or halberd)

- a javelin (which is the first to go out of fashion almost completely) is just a javelin, whether it's simply a thrown spear, or heavier, or lighter, or smaller (martiobarbuli)

- and finally a ranged weapon be it sling, bow or crossbow are only variations on a theme (as is torsion or even early gunpowder artillery), even when fully developed to either the Mongol compound or the English/Welsh longbow.

All are simple variations, you still have to hit your target at very close range, or annoy/skirmish at slightly longer, whilst protecting yourself against the same.

There is in fact no real reason to fundamentally change battlefield tactics (and all that then links) between the first organised soldiery and the founding of the 'city state' and the 19th century with the introduction of the rifle (and hence range and accuracy). No reason at all.

It is not at all surprising, therefore, that after the post-Roman/Byzantine Dark Age/Medieval period, the reintroduction of the professional armies culminating in the Napoleonic period also reintroduced the same tactics and organisations that the Romans used. The French army particularly shows 6 company (cf century) battalions (cohorts) and the classic Army Corps is a near perfectly re-imagined Consular Army!

So, the Romans seem to have gone back to majority spear-armed (which they never really lost anyway); their sword gets a bit longer; they wear less armour; their shield changes shape? These are tiny blips on a pretty damn near straight line - none of them require or need any changes in basic tactics or organisations.

I'll go further - for any suggestions of a change in organisational structures really should be accompanied by a reason as to why. Steven/Antiochus thinks it may be due to non-Earthly and cultural mathematical reasons; but whilst I don't agree, it is a reason that by-passes the other more obviously logical reasons - which I believe to be tenuous at best for the arms and armour change very little, if at all.