Talk:Vexillatio

Grazzi
Grazzi for the help mi Amici:) --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite and sources
As stated, the version of the article to which I have reverted conforms to the account in Southern & Dixon. Where specialist works differ from general ones, the specialist work can be considered to be more reliable. Southern & Dixon state (p9): There was no standard formula and no standardization of vexillation size. There are examples of legionary vexillations in, e.g. 69, which contradict the idea of a standard size of 1,000 men. Equally, a standard size of 500 cavalry is impossible to reconcile with the accepted idea that a legion included around 100 cavalry until the time of Gallienus, nor could an ala quingenaria produce a detachment of this size, so it would only possible for a full strength ala millenaria to do so. Such formations were apparently rare in early times. If, e.g. Goldsworthy or Webster, reliable works support the concept of "standard" vexillations, then please do add this back into the article, but also add the appropriate work to the references. Discussions of the 3rd century belong in that article and need not be repeated here, especially when they lack supporting evidence. Angus McLellan 15:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I DID provide my source, including exact page numbers! Which you chose to dismiss and delete without any real consideration. Yet despite having never read, nor heard of "Southern & Dixon" I did not revert most your of your edits. I've shown you GOOD FAITH, even though you have shown me none. I don't see why you continue to delete my information. Dupuy and Dupuy are highly reliable, valid sources, at least as much as your S&D. Here is another source you have perhaps heard of Edward Gibbon, who in describing the cavalry component of an Imperial legion reckons its strength thus: "The entire establishment formed a regiment, if we may use the modern expression, of seven hundred and twenty-six horse, naturally connected with its respective legion, but occasionally separated to act in the line, and to compose a part of the wings of the army." In his notes he cites-"Veget. de Re Militari, l. ii. c. 6. His positive testimony, which might be supported by circumstantial evidence, ought surely to silence those critics who refuse the Imperial legion its proper body of cavalry." In otherwords, this whole notion that in an entire a legion there were barely 100 cavalrymen is nonesense. Even in the Manipular legions of the Republic, we know they had far more than that even though they had a much smaller empire with much less wealth and other resources to draw upon. Nor does it take into account Auxiliaries and their cavalry establishments, which were doubtless even larger. It has become a fad amongst upstart, revisionista historians to "play" with numbers in order to further their career/political agendas. Iam far more inclined to believe the figures provided by Dupuy&Dupuy who have been around for decades, or Gibbon, who has been around for centuries, or Vegetius and Arrian who have been around for Millenia, than a couple of unknown, recent comers. As for the infantry, entire cohorts were regularlly detached to perform various duties. Why would it be impossible for a legion or a group of them to spare a few for a Vexillatio? The figures S&D and you provide are ridiculously low. So be on notice that Iam reverting your recent edits to my last version, which I feel is a good compromise and combines the best elements of both of our efforts. I appeciate your contributions and points, but I don't see why you have to completely delete and dismiss mine in order to make them. The next move is yours. I hope you will be reasonable, since we both have far more productive things to do than to engage in an edit war. Good day sir,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'll leave your information alone since you are so attached to it. I ought, as you suggest, to be able to find better things to do.


 * But perhaps I can persuade you to do some research and change it yourself. You could Google for Southern & Dixon's book. You could find primary sources, like Tacitus who mentions detached units of 2,000 men. Google Books could help too (e.g. Ross Cowan, Imperial Roman Legionary AD 161-284 (p17): "Already in 170 Marcus Aurelius' recently established legions II and III Italica were operating in vexillations (a term that could be applied to any size of detachment or work party)." Not that I'd rely on any of Osprey's output, but it happens that most agree on the variability of vexillation size.) You could find solid evidence of vexillation sizes referred to in, e.g.  Stephen Williams, Diocletian and the Roman Recovery (notes at p247 where the some unit sizes, based on pay receipts, is discussed). This info also appears in the wargamers' bible of the Imperial Roman army, Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome. As for legionary cavalry strengths, legions under the Principate are assumed to have had 4 turmae of about 30 men each. See, among many, Le Bohec, The Imperial Roman Army, p24; Goldsworthy, The Roman Army at War, p16; Campbell, The Roman Army, 31 BC-AD 337, p28. It is less certainly supposed that the 700 or so cavalry of Vegetius, as mentioned by Gibbon, were added by Gallienus, or possibly earlier. Angus McLellan 20:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I never disputed the varying sizes or compositions of vexillationes. I simply stated, what I've read in Dupuy & Dupuy and elsewhere, that on AVERAGE, a TYPICAL vexillatio was about 1000 men. Doubtless some were larger, others smaller. This is why the comitatenses legions of the Dominate were the same size. The Romans were, above all, highly practical...they learned via experience, and experience with the vexillatio system taught them this was the most effective size for a mobile, field task force. It made practical sense, since a legion could afford to detach 10-20% of its strength for several months to a year and still be able to effectively carry out its duties. What does not make practical sense is that an entire legion would only have 120 cavalry. It would be barely enough for scouting and messenger duties, even yet flank security. I've seen this misguided figure quoted in numerous sources, including the Worldbook Encyclopedia. The arguement supporting this, of course, is that's basically all it was used for since the main cavalry elements were provided by the auxilia. But that number is still FAR too small, and besides ALL cavalry were, technically, considered auxilia...Roman or non. Much more reasonable, and likely, would be a turmae for each cohort, for about 300 horse, same as a manipular legion. Though this is less than half the compliment given by Vegetius, Gibbon et al, whom, as I stated above, I'm far more inclined to believe unless some recent scholar (or more likely archeologist or archivist) makes a remarkable new discovery. Say a full TOE (Table of organization and equipment) written by Marcus Aurelius, Trajan, Vespasian or Claudius (along with the latter's secret autobiography;). But thank you, sir, for your contributions, those links (which I shall peruse) and for being enough of a scholar and gentleman not to turn this into just another ugly edit war. Regards, --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting passage from Tacitus you linked there. In which he mentions the infamous force of 2000 gladiators Otho hired to fight in his ranks. But I don't think they really counted as a Vexillatio, though. They had no vexillum for one, they were not legionaires for two, and even Tacitus describes them as "a disreputable kind of auxiliaries"--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

???
The Roman emperors had from the time of Augustus had at their disposal unit in Italy and in the city of Rome.

??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:9D80:5C68:20CF:3FAF:B4A1:9EB3 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)