Scepticism about Vegetius\' analysis of the Late Roman Army?

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

I've just done a search, but I can't find where this has been discussed before.

Many people cite Vegetius as evidence that the Late Roman Army had seriously declined in quality by his time. I've got the impression that many modern historians feel that Vegetius needs to be taken with a grain of salt on this issue, but some - eg Arther Ferrill (a writer I think is fairly pathetic, but anyway) - hold him up as evidence of the supposed "decline of the Roman Army".

So is there a consensus on the reliability of Vegetius? References to detailed analysis of Vegetius would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance,

[Robert Vermaat]

No consensus I'm afraid, although I'd say there is a consensus on Vegetius needing a lot of attention when using him for details.

The trouble is that vegetius is no military himself (unlike Ammianus) and that he is very much basing what is a purely theorethical approach on much, much older military treatises. Unlike Maurice, who much used the very practical Arrian, Vegetius goes back to writers who wrote too long ago to be practical in Vegetius' day.

What Vegetius does is offer us details of earlier times, but he leaves us guessing how much earlier. For instance, when he writes about the 'old' legions, is he referring to the 1st c. or the 3rd c.? Or is he using Polybios and is he making up the past by himself as he goes along?

What Vegetius does not is offer us a description of the army in his own day, although it seems accepted that he does offer details from the late 4th c. army.

Frankly, it's very frustration - every half sentence needs much study to determine if you're on a gold mine or in a mud pit.

[Spartan JKM]

Hey Tim.

I agree with Robert - there is no consensus (at least with conviction), but few think Vegetius was a solid authority to be seldom questioned; as Robert stated, he was neither a soldier nor an historian, and his work was compiled sporadically. Superfluous to say (as most of you know this) his Epitoma rei militaris (De Re Militari) is the only extant manual on the late Roman military we have.

One book I came across is The Roman Soldier by one George R. Watson (written late 60s/early 70s?). But I merely skimmed it at the library. Vegetius came up a couple of times, and without praise and concurrence.

There is also the work(s) of one Graham Webster, writing of the Imperial army, but I have never seen it.

But perhaps you know these works, and they didn't help.

James

[D B Campbell]

One book I came across is The Roman Soldier by one George R. Watson (written late 60s/early 70s?). But I merely skimmed it at the library. Vegetius came up a couple of times, and without praise and concurrence.

Excellent book! One of my favourites.

[Arahne]

For example:
Dietwulf Baatz-Vegetius Legion and arhaeological facts, Roman Fortresses and their legions, ed. Brewer, 2000.

[D B Campbell]

Dietwulf Baatz, "Vegetius' Legion and the archaeological facts", Roman Fortresses and their legions, ed. Brewer, 2000.

An excellent paper in which Baatz concludes that "Vegetius' legio antiqua never existed. It would appear that Vegetius reconstructed his legio antiqua from information that was both insufficient and derived from different periods, and that any gaps were filled by suppositions based on the contemporary situation. ... It is very unlikely that Vegetius' legio antiqua ever existed as described and, therefore, most of his statements and figures should be mistrusted".

Baatz suggests that, for the acies duplex (Veg., mil. 2.6), "Vegetius may, in this instance, have used a reliable source and probably preserves an interesting piece of information. However, these details must await confirmation by an independent source".

He also suggests that Vegetius' peculiar breakdown of troop numbers per centurion in the First Cohort (Veg., mil. 2.8 ) may be a garbled account of their pay rates. "There is a suspicion that Vegetius may well have misunderstood his source, and instead of the figures referring to the number of centuriae commanded by each of the centurions in the first cohort, they might more realistically indicate their rates of pay."

Thus, the primus pilus drew 4x centurion pay, primus princeps prior 2x (i.e. as duplicarius), primus hastatus prior and primus princeps posterior 1½x (i.e. as sesquiplicarii), and primus hastatus posterior 1x (i.e. normal centurion) pay. Nice theory.

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

Dietwulf Baatz, "Vegetius' Legion and the archaeological facts", Roman Fortresses and their legions, ed. Brewer, 2000.

An excellent paper in which Baatz concludes that "Vegetius' legio antiqua never existed. It would appear that Vegetius reconstructed his legio antiqua from information that was both insufficient and derived from different periods, and that any gaps were filled by suppositions based on the contemporary situation. ... It is very unlikely that Vegetius' legio antiqua ever existed as described and, therefore, most of his statements and figures should be mistrusted".

Thanks, but I'm really looking for detailed analysis regarding how reliable Vegetius is about the Army in his own time. For example, Simon Macdowell's The Late Roman Infantryman:236-565 AD quotes Vegetius on later Roman troops neglecting to wear armour and helmets and then points out that this is not borne out by other evidence; eg Amminaus or iconographic evidence. Hugh Elton gives several other reasons for being highly sceptical of Vegetius on this point (Warfare in Roman Europe AD 350-425, p. 110-11).

The impression I've got is that Vegetius was a civilian with no military experience and some highly romanticised (and slightly garbled) ideas about how the Roman Army had been in its heyday. Writing the wake of military set-backs of the late Fourth Century, Vegetius takes an armchair expert's view, eulogising the early Army and contrasting it with his ideas about the current force, despite not really having any great knowledge of either (a bit like some old conservative writing a letter to the editor claiming that all the worlds woes would be solved if they brought back compulsory military service, re-introduced caning to schools and made all young people get a proper haircut and shinier shoes).

But since people who insist that the Late Roman Army was an armourless, ill-disciplined, barbarised rabble (one that, despite this, somehow kept on winning battles) occasionally cite Vegetius, I'm interested in any detailed analysis of how reliable he is on the Army of the late Fourth to early Fifth Centuries.
Cheers,

[D B Campbell]

For example, Simon Macdowell's The Late Roman Infantryman:236-565 AD quotes Vegetius on later Roman troops neglecting to wear armour and helmets and then points out that this is not borne out by other evidence; eg Amminaus or iconographic evidence.

I hope he acknowledges Jon Coulston, "Later Roman armour, 3rd-6th centuries AD", JRMES 1 (1990) 139-160.

[Tarbicus]

therefore, most of his statements and figures should be mistrusted.

Isn't one of his figures to do with the military step, and how far a legionary could march in so many hours? I've seen it said he got that wrong, ergo..., but it was proven on RAG a while ago that he was bang on, if the day is a long summer day, and the hours split between an early sunrise and late sundown - someone had a eureka moment. This involved a number of people (including me :roll: ) pacing up and down in the military pace with a stopwatch, then doing the calculations. I can't help but feel he's dismissed too readily, especially when a practical test of one of his statements debunks a more academic test.

[Robert Vermaat]

therefore, most of his statements and figures should be mistrusted.

I can't help but feel he's dismissed too readily, especially when a practical test of one of his statements debunks a more academic test.

Jim, you´re right, Vegetius should be handled with care, not dismissed out of hand. The trouble is that we can´t easily tell (not all his statements can be proven that easily) where he is right and where he is wrong. No doubt there is information that can be trusted. For one, I have no trouble accepting what he has to say about plumbatae. I have more trouble with his ´legio antiqua´ though, as I´m unable to say whether this was a 3rd-c. legion or one made up from ancient sources, just to show a model to his contemporaries. Which was not an odd thing to do, Hellenistic army models are used throughout the Roman period, just as models.

[Tarbicus]

Exactly Rob. We're talking time periods that are like The Gulf War compared to the Somme, or even earlier. Even if Vegetius' organisations were only in place for ten or twenty years, that doesn't make them wrong. But we can tend to look at a whole century and base our period model on such, and if the piece doesn't fit the whole then it's sometimes thrown out and dismissed. Why ask how Vegetius could get it right when we're even further away in history, with far fewer sources and resources to hand? It's not like he was completely stupid, and the argument that only military men can comment on military affairs is a bit of a whitewash IMHO.

Sure, take him with a pinch of salt to a degree, but I get nervous when modern historians claim they know far better. That's honestly not to denegrate modern historians, but I'm a sceptic both ways on the subject of Vegetius.

[D B Campbell]

therefore, most of his statements and figures should be mistrusted.

... I can't help but feel he's dismissed too readily, especially when a practical test of one of his statements debunks a more academic test.

Can I just point out that the "D B Campbell" quote is actually a Dietwulf Baatz quote that refers specifically to Vegetius' legio antiqua !!

[Tarbicus]

Changed.

therefore, most of his statements and figures should be mistrusted.

Isn't one of his figures to do with the military step, ...

[D B Campbell]

Changed.

Thanks! :wink:

[Sean Manning]

And medievals seem to have found him very practically useful. Admittedly, there weren't many other works on warfare surviving in Latin, but clearly Vegetius understood something about warfare. Whether he was a very good historian or analyst of contemporary times is another question, of course. I still haven't read him so can't comment.