05-02-2002, 06:47 PM
The very nice thread on roman disasters set me thinking again. We have all read about crisis and challanges to roman manpower, organization, and culture in the different periods of roman history.<br>
<br>
Of corse what defines a "crisis" first requires defining the "norm". Has anyone studied whether what we think we know about the following are indeed consistent:<br>
- the number of legions and auxilliaries;<br>
- the population, roman and non;<br>
- the life expectancy of civilians;<br>
- the life expectancy of soldiers (length of service);<br>
- the draft rate.<br>
<br>
What am I drinving at?<br>
I am left surprised, still today after many many years, every time I think about the significant down sizing of the number of men at arms by Octavian/Augustus and then by how little the number of legions grew over the following three centuries. Evidently the advisors of Augustus did their homework very VERY well: they did an eccellent job in evaluating the amount of energy they could tap. The scheme was so sound that it broke down only during the fifty year nightmare of the third century, and even then it was solid enough to allow the army to hold out long enough to reorganize. The empire did not collapse, against all odds I might say!<br>
<br>
Or is this just another aspect of roman behaviour that cannot be explained by modern practical-mind-set analysis? Maybe the "mind"/"minds" behind the organization of the new imperial army of Augustus was/were not rational in any "modern" way. Maybe it just seems that way because of our natural tendency to project our way of thinking onto others. Ummm.... Unlikely<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 5/2/02 8:50:41 pm<br></i>
<br>
Of corse what defines a "crisis" first requires defining the "norm". Has anyone studied whether what we think we know about the following are indeed consistent:<br>
- the number of legions and auxilliaries;<br>
- the population, roman and non;<br>
- the life expectancy of civilians;<br>
- the life expectancy of soldiers (length of service);<br>
- the draft rate.<br>
<br>
What am I drinving at?<br>
I am left surprised, still today after many many years, every time I think about the significant down sizing of the number of men at arms by Octavian/Augustus and then by how little the number of legions grew over the following three centuries. Evidently the advisors of Augustus did their homework very VERY well: they did an eccellent job in evaluating the amount of energy they could tap. The scheme was so sound that it broke down only during the fifty year nightmare of the third century, and even then it was solid enough to allow the army to hold out long enough to reorganize. The empire did not collapse, against all odds I might say!<br>
<br>
Or is this just another aspect of roman behaviour that cannot be explained by modern practical-mind-set analysis? Maybe the "mind"/"minds" behind the organization of the new imperial army of Augustus was/were not rational in any "modern" way. Maybe it just seems that way because of our natural tendency to project our way of thinking onto others. Ummm.... Unlikely<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 5/2/02 8:50:41 pm<br></i>
Jeffery Wyss
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
