Login

derek forrest · 01-25-2002, 06:58 PM

I looked forward to my copy of the Epitome but my feeling is that he was the Polonius type around court who was given a job to keep him quiet. 
He looked up a few very old sources and then regurgitates them with a 4C gloss and suggests that the Emperor tries to get the legions to grow like teeth from the ground. 
From our point of view he is probably a better source for the 4C than the first. 
I would hesitate to quote him as a source for anything other than some general military precepts

mcbishop · 01-25-2002, 07:35 PM

On the contrary, I would class him as a good (if opaque) source precisely because he was such an appalling essayist. Anybody who has taught in higher education has come across the student who dashed down to the library at the last moment and copied chunks indiscriminately out of text books and presented it as his own work, even when the books used contradict each other (how wide *was* a Roman ditch?) and have differing and distinctive literary styles (is armour 'lorica' or 'catafracta'). 
 
A recommended read is Schenk* who has done all the legwork in comparing the original texts, where they survive, with V's take on things. There are many characteristic passages where you find an informed technical explanation of something and then a noddy comment comes from V, as in his throwaway line that 'castellum is the diminutive of castra' - no, really? And a Latin-literate audience would not know that? 
 
The Anonymous, on the other, is completely and utterly barking and not merely a poor epitomator. 
 
Mike Bishop 
 
*Schenk, D. 1930, Flavius Vegetius Renatus, Die Quellen der Epitoma Rei Militaris, Klio Beihefte 21, Leipzig

01-26-2002, 10:00 AM

Salve, 
 
Vegetius represents an important source of information on the Roman army, even if the material in the Epitoma comes from various stages of Roman military history. Even though he can be proven to be plain wrong in some parts that seem to have been his original work (eg his reconstruction of the structure of legionary centurionate which does not match the one based on the epigraphic sources), his work preserves snippets of other writers whose work is otherwise (largely) lost. In addition his work does match other sources of information on a number of points and he cannot be dismissed as totally unreliable. His work must be handled with care, but that is true of most writers of Antiquity. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

derek forrest · 01-26-2002, 12:07 PM

I am a a lawyer for my sins and I am used to trying to sort out truth from fiction. One technique is of course to throw doubt on testimony by showing that other areas are unsafe. 
I look at V and I see so many areas where his evidence flies in the face of all we read in our current textbooks that I am left scratching my head as to what to believe. If I quote V as authority I am all too aware that someone else will shoot me down in flames for some of his daft statements. 
One thing you do get is a sense of how different thing were for the 4 c roman from the ist and indeed how they must have yearned for the old days of the Ic. 
Anyway I shall finish V and try and put on my historical rather than legal spectacles.

08-19-2002, 07:33 PM

Having read the many references recommended to me by Sander the existence of VegetiusÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ Legio Antiqua is obviously debatable but IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢m not convinced that it can be written off. The archeological evidence from legion fortresses built for legions of the early imperial era might not reflect organizational changes made in the mid-late empire. For example, in my own experience the U.S. Army changed from combat battalions with three line companies to a newer organization with four slightly smaller companies yet we used the same barracks without modifying internal layout with the minor exception of changing some rooms from troop quarters to office spaces. A future historian studying the remnants of such a barracks would look in vain for any archeological evidence confirming that weÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢d ever made such a change. 
 
Another reason that barracks may not have been modified was that Septimius Severus had allowed soldiers to marry and he or a successor allowed at least some married soldiers to dwell ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“off postÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ with their families. In such a case, a century barracks intended for occupation by 10 x eight man units might easily accommodate 10 x eleven man units if some of those men were dwelling outside the fortress. This would account for five of the six century barracks of a cohort. The remaining barracks could easily accommodated the two x 33 man cavalry units said by Vegetius to be part of each cohort (2nd-10th). 
 
The decrease of infantry officers (when going from 6 to 5 centuries) might have been a method of minimizing the cost of creating the number of cavalry officers needed for the new cavalry units. 
 
The expansion of cavalry by creating them within the legions as opposed to creating or expanding alae also has a certain logic. I was struck by a documentary program I saw on the International History Channel on the modern British Household Cavalry. The narrator explained that the regiment preferred recruits who had no riding experience because it was easier to train them to avoid the bad habits that experienced riders came with. That logic could easily apply here. In creating a new cavalry force the Roman leaders may have wanted to avoid the pre-conceptions of the existing cavalry units. Perhaps there was a necessity for having tactical flexibility the existing units lacked. 
 
Another reason for making this new cavalry a part of the legion was to create a truly flexible and cohesive combined arms force. A unit with heavy infantry (regular legionaries), light/missile troops (lanciarii), and all purpose cavalry capable of both shock action and scout/skirmish duties with a singular sense of esprit dÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ corps would be more effective than attaching new or expanded alae with no sense of belonging to a legion. 
 
I also am uncomfortable with assuming that Vegetius didnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t know what he was talking about. That is not to say I donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t believe the ancient historians didnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t exaggerate or make mistakes but lack of confirming contemporary accounts is not the same as contradictory contemporary accounts. 
 
If VegetiusÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ legio antiqua is a mistake I find it very ironic that this organization which inspired the combined arms (cavalry/light infantryÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Â

08-20-2002, 09:43 AM

Salve, 
 
The message refers to a thread on Vardulli's Roman army forum. 
 
Though I agree it cannot yet be written off completely, I do think that it is highly likely that the structure as provided by Vegetius is his own reconstruction based on incomplete information about the legionary table of organisation. Even if his legio antiqua was at any time an actual organisational sturcture, it seems that it may in such a case have coexisted with other tables of organisation, for which evidence for their continued use is available. Firm source references to corroborate the peculiarities in Vegetius are to date lacking, though that does not preclude that it may appear in future publications. There are on the other hand strong indications for the continuing organisation of the legion in sixty centuriae in the third century carrying the titles of the old republican battle deployment (thread with names of legionary centuries and thread with late inscriptions). 
 
Though it is commonplace in modern studies to claim that the legion was an all heavy infantry force after the time of Marius, there are in fact references to weapons specialists of various kinds within the ranks of the legion of the late republican and early imperial legion. There are references to legionary light infantry skirmishers, cavalrymen and archers. The legions thus remained an all-arms formation, even though in differing proportions compared to the legion of the time of Polybios. The third century evidence from Apamea is not indicative of a radical new structure of the legion. Legionary lanciarii are already described for the first century army by Josephus while antesignani and expediti performed comparable tasks in the times of Caesar (see previous thread). The all-arms formation did not require a structure like the ordinatio of Vegetius, but was in place with the ten chohort, thirty maniple, sixty century legion. 
 
Legionary cavalrymen, javelineers and other weapons specialists were attached to the centuriae of the legion rather than to any subordinate unit of their own. They were detached for duty in their own provisional formations rather than assigned to a separate permanent subunit of their own. Some Roman cavalrymen were not enlisted as horsemen, but received training in order to qualify for cavalry service as a discens equitum/ mathetes hippeoon only after service in the infantry. Others entered the cavalry directly, even gaining a higher entry position when bringing along their own mounts. 
 
Considerations of cost are not likely to have inspired a changed organisation with less officers. Not only was military pay increased several times at the start of the third century, the army was also expanded in size by the addition of new legionary and auxiliary formations. The increasing costs of maintaining the imperial army was the main cause of the economic problems of the third century. Armies in modern democracies have to worry a lot more about military budgets and manpower levels defiend by law than what essentially was a private army of an autocratic military dictator. Emperors relied on their control of the armed forces and army costs (pay, donatives, retirement grants) constituted the largest post in the imperial budget. 
 
The Roman army has inspired many things that have had little to do with historical reality. People continue to this day to be fooled by a mirage of the Roman military machine, projecting their own ideas backwards to create a vision that does not necessarily bear any relationship to the source material, claims to authenticity notwithstanding. The Roman army used to be and continues to be quoted as an example to lend authority to ideas that were not derived from actual evidence. Modern armies have one way of doing things and ancient ones others. 
 
Reference to discens equitum 
 
 CIL 5, 8278 
 
Iulius centurio | supernumerarius | leg(ionis) XI Claudiae | stip(endiorum) XXIIII annor(um) | circiter XXXX | tiro probitus ann(orum) | XVI postea profecit | 
disce(n)s equitum | ordine factus mag(ister) | equitum positus hic 
 
'Iulius, supernumerary centurion of the legio XI Claudia, with twenty four years of service, about forty years old, accepted as recruit at age sixteen, has afterwards advanced to trainee cavalryman, made master of the horsemen as centurion, is buried here' 
 
Horsemen attached to centuria 
 
 RIB 254 
 
Q(uinti) Corneli(i) | Q(uinti) f(ilii) Cla(udia) eq(uitis) | le(gionis) VIIII [>] Cassi(i) | Martialis an(norum) | XL stip(endiorum) XIX | h(ic) s(itus) e(st) 
 
'Quintus Cornelius, son of Quintus, Claudian voting district, cavalryman of [legio[/i] VIIII in the centuria of Cassius Martialis, 40 years of age, nineteen years of service, is buried here' 
 
 RIB 481 
 
]inus eque[s leg(ionis)] | II ad(iutricis) p(iae) f(idelis) > Petroni(i) | Fidi stipendio | rum IXI anno | rum XXV | hic sep[[ul(tu)s]] est 
 
'...inus, horsemen of legio II Adiutrix pia fidelis in the centuria of Petronius Fidus with ? service years, age 25, is buried here' 
 
 
Reading on army costs 
 
Campbell, B., The emperor and the Roman army 31BC-AD235 (Oxford 1984) 468p. 
Duncan-Jones, R., Money and government in the Roman empire (Cambridge 1994) 300p. 
MacMullen, R., 'How big was the Roman Army?' in: Klio 62 (1980), 451- 460. 
MacMullen, R., 'The Roman emperor's army costs' in: Latomus 43 (1984), 571-580. 
 
Regards, 
 
 
Sander van Dorst

08-25-2002, 01:19 PM

...do require a higher proportion of cavalry and light troops than the early imperial legion, as well as a permanent command structure. The Antesignani or similar troops were apparently only used for special occasions and not the routine tasks like providing local security, conducting operational reconaissance, and disrupt enemy battle line w/ missile fire. The 120 horsemen also could not properly be used as a battlefield shock force because of their small numbers. a properly combined force would be based on the heavy infantry but would have light troops like Alexander's peltasts/Agrian archers with a permanent command structure. It should have both light and heavy cavalry to provide reconaissance, exploitation and battlefield shock or a cavalry that was capable of both (e.g. Byzantine cataphracti). The legio antiqua would seem to provide for that. The best balanced Roman formation as far as numbers go would appear to be the legion as described by Polybius with it's associated Allied wing. Between the two formations they would have 6000 heavy infantry, 2400 velites and and 2400 (300 Roman/900 Allied)cavalry. Though the velites lacked a separate command structure they appear to carry out the classic functions of light troops to include supporting the cavalry which light troops have been required to do all throughout history. A few soldiers in each century designated as cavalry and a few more as 'special' infantry would not be adequate for normal combined arms duties.

08-25-2002, 04:01 PM

In my opinion it's possible that Vegetius' legio antiqua had coexisted with other particular organizations. Probably there was not any absolute standard organization, and the basic model could be altered to adapt each legion to a particular task. So we can find first cohors with five or six centuries, sometime undersized (Caesar's legions) or oversized units, one or more cohortes milliariae, little or large cavalry and light infantry complements, legions equipped with a particular weapon (Nero's prima Italica equipped like Alexander's phalanx). However it seems evident that men of the different arms were enlisted together in the rolls of each centuria, and were detached for duty to ad hoc single arm units (equites legionis and lancearii). The legion was sure an all arms formation, formed by all arms sub-units, from the basic centuria trought manipula and cohortes. 
Also the apparently oversized strenght figures of the cohors described by Vegetius, which numbers 555 men, could include pheraps the traditional 480 heavy infantry legionarii and a contubernium for each centuria of light infantry antesigani (plus signiferi, cornicen, optiones, etc.). The numbers of each arm complement probaly varied trought the centuries with the evolution of the role of the legions in the roman grand strategy; in the late republic and in the early empire, the legion was basically an offensive strike force and the inportance of the shock heavy infantry was predominant. When fixed frontiers were established, and the defence of the empire become more important than the conquest of new territories, the task of the legion gained a more varied nature, and the other arms (light infantry and cavalry) rised in weight inside the legion itself. Choosing the light infantry and the cavalry personnel among the distinguished men in each centuria could eliminate eventual rivalries and diffidences amongst the different arms. The efficiency of an enlarged all arms legion animated by the same corps identity and trained to act together was sure higher than a mix of heavy infantry legion, auxiliary light infantry and cavalry. Auxiliary cohortes and alae, numeri etc. could emphasize the strength of a particular arm, not constitute this arm at all. 
 
Best Regards, 
Luciano.

08-25-2002, 07:19 PM

Salve, 
 
The imperial legionary light infantry had in fact its own officers. Josephus mentions the hekatontarches lonchophoroon while a tetrarchic papyrus mentions two hekatontarchoi soupernoumerarioi and a semiaphoros (standardbearer). Arrian refers to hegemones of soomatophylakes from the infantry of the legion. What evidence exists suggests that antesignani and lancearii were picked troops rather than the velies comprised of the youngest and poorest. Quality may have made up to some extent the reduction in numbers. Caesar's antesignani and expediti are attested as fulfilling a similar role in supporting the cavalry as earlier velites. 
 
Roman legionary cavalry is in fact recorded as a battlefield force in the early empireTacitus, Annales 4.73). Wether the legionary horse had specialised troopers within their ranks is uncertain, but one should take into acount that within other cavalry formations, the alae, provincial singulares and imperial horse guard variously armed troopers are attested. One of the units of promoti in the ND consists of heavy troopers ( equites promoti clibanarii. 
 
Legions had a range of weapons specialists within their ranks througout their existence to perform varying roles on the battlefield. Auxiliaries made up the numbers in some roles (eg cavalry and archers), but the legion had similar skills available in the ranks. 
 
The reference in Vegetius to the possibility of multiple milliary cohorts in legiones may be related to the apparent formation of new legions out of existing auxiliary units (as suspected of I Noricorum) 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 8/25/02 9:19:47 pm

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me