Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SHARK" data-source="post: 156914" data-attributes="member: 1131">Greetings!Well, I've seen a variety of sources with different figures for the strength of the Roman armies during different times. The estimation of army strength is not a precise thing, and is difficult to completely ascertain. For example, in The Grand Strategy of The Roman Empire, by Edward N. Luttwak, he writes that there were 67 or 68 full-strength Legions under the command of the Emperor Diocletian. Each Legion had approximately 6,000 soldiers, which would suggest that 408,000 Legionnaires were under arms. The practice of having an equal number of specialists/auxilliary troops would further suggest an additional 400-500,000 soldiers. Thus, providing a figure of 816,000 troops. I've seen other estimates as low as 250,000 troops as well. With the additional auxiliaries, that would be, what? 500,000 troops? Good enough though S'mon.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I think that would then be 500,000-1,000,000 soldiers. Assuming an empire of 100 million people, that would be a standing force of between .5 and 1.0 Percent of the population overall, correct? With an agricultural economy, ruled with a sophisticated government, do not these recruitment figures seem reasonable? I think that they should be accurate for what the Roman Empire was capable of. What do you think?<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Semper Fidelis,SHARK</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SHARK, post: 156914, member: 1131"] Greetings! Well, I've seen a variety of sources with different figures for the strength of the Roman armies during different times. The estimation of army strength is not a precise thing, and is difficult to completely ascertain. For example, in The Grand Strategy of The Roman Empire, by Edward N. Luttwak, he writes that there were 67 or 68 full-strength Legions under the command of the Emperor Diocletian. Each Legion had approximately 6,000 soldiers, which would suggest that 408,000 Legionnaires were under arms. The practice of having an equal number of specialists/auxilliary troops would further suggest an additional 400-500,000 soldiers. Thus, providing a figure of 816,000 troops. I've seen other estimates as low as 250,000 troops as well. With the additional auxiliaries, that would be, what? 500,000 troops? Good enough though S'mon.:) I think that would then be 500,000-1,000,000 soldiers. Assuming an empire of 100 million people, that would be a standing force of between .5 and 1.0 Percent of the population overall, correct? With an agricultural economy, ruled with a sophisticated government, do not these recruitment figures seem reasonable? I think that they should be accurate for what the Roman Empire was capable of. What do you think?:) Semper Fidelis, SHARK [/QUOTE]

Verification