Hoffmann and the Seniores - Iuniores

[Holtingar]

I just finished reading "Failure of Empire" by Noel Lensky. It was a very thought-provoking panorama of one of Rome's more maligned emperors.
I'm curious now as to some of the details he discusses in relation to the military power at Valentinian's and Valens' disposal.

Lensky frequently cites "Das Spätrömische Bewegungsheer" by Dietrich Hoffmann in his discussions about the units in Valens' army.
He loosely follows Hoffmann's theory that Valentinian and Valens divided the remaining 50 mobile units of Julian's army into "Senior" and "Iunior" halves.
He also states that Hoffmann deduced exactly which units were obliterated at the battle of Hadrianople, saying that the Eastern Empire lost 2 cavalry vexillations, 9 mobile legions, and 5 auxiliary infantry units. On top of this Valens had transferred 14 units to the West at Valentinian's request in the 360s

While I understand that the accuracy of Hoffmann's deductions has been disputed, I'm interested in finding out the names of these units and whether they all still appear in the Notitia Dignitatum, but I can't seem to find a copy of Hoffmann's work anywhere.
Can anyone point me in the right direction?

[Longovicium]

The Osprey Campaign series book 'Adrianople AD 378' by Simon MacDowell has some interesting information on Valens and the units assembled to take part in the campaign against the Goths - he doesn't cite Hoffman in is sources however.

You can find it here:

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/A ... 841761473/

[Holtingar]

Thanks for the info.
I've got a copy MacDowall's Campaign book, and it has been really helpful in a lot of respects. The maps and battlefield illustrations alone are worth the price of the book.
But as far as the specific units go, unfortunately, he hasn't told me anything I didn't already know.

Just from scanning other primary sources it's obvious that some of the units listed are of an earlier date than the others: the Joviani et Herculiani, Petulantes et Celtae, Batavi et Bracchiati etc. while others are blatantly of Valentinianic origin (i.e. Valentinianenses, Gratianenses)

Last night I put all of the units listed in the Notitia into a Microsoft Access database and, coupled with a close reading of Appendix II in A.H.M. Jones' "The Later Roman Empire", am now making an attempt to narrow the possibilities. The database is broken down into columns as follows:

| Number in N.D. | Unit Name | Name Variants | Unit Class | Imperial Jurisdiction | Commanding Officer | Other Commanding Officers | Distribution | Era/Commissioning Emperor | Notes |

I may need to add a few more columns as the work progresses, especially to help isolate duplicates and copyist's errors, but these seemed to be the most important qualifiers.
Again, if anyone can help me out with either finding a listing of Hoffmann's hypothetical 3rd-quarter-of-the-4th-Century army, or even just an online source that sheds some light on this I would greatly appreciate it. I'm especially interested in learning the names of "the fifty" Hoffmann purports to have been split by the Val. Bros. and of those, the units destroyed at Hadrianople. I know his theory may be disputed with some very sound reasoning, but it's still a helpful tool for understanding the circumstances.

Also, if anyone is interested I can upload the database to a server somewhere so people on the forum can use it once it's complete.

[Longovicium]

That spreadsheet is something I would be very interested in seeing when you feel enough data has been added. My own personal area of interest in is the period leading up to Adrianople - anything which helps me understand the background to that fateful battle would be very appreciated.

[Robert Vermaat]

Guys, for an earlier discussion here, read Late Roman Army - seniores and iuniores.

[D B Campbell]

... but I can't seem to find a copy of Hoffmann's work anywhere. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Hoffmann's Das Spätrömische Bewegungsheer is a huge pair of volumes. You'd find it in a University library.

[Holtingar]

I just got a copy of Roger Tomlin's "Seniores-Iuniores in the Late Roman Field Army".
I just scanned through it a few minutes ago, and it seems that he (unknowingly) replicated Hoffman's theory in small. Noel Lensky mentioned Hoffmann and Tomlin in the same breath, but I get the impression that Tomlin's conclusions are a little more conservative than Hoffmann's (and, I think, a little more contemporary) I'm going to give it a close read it tonight.

Longovicium, I took note that you were interested in the database I'm working on. It looks like you and I share a common interest, I've been studying the primary and secondary literature dealing with Hadrianople pretty closely since January, and the more I learn the more I want to know. I'll make sure to let you know as soon as I post the spreadsheet.

One thing that I'm continually frustrated with is that Ammianus ended his history with the aborted siege of Constantinople and Julius' subsequent execution of the Gothic 'hostages'. The primary source material that deals with the following three years of war in the Balkans is far too vague compared to Ammianus' account, and it would have been nice to know exactly where and how the Goths managed to inflict another serious defeat on Theodosius in Macedonia in 380, and the precise details of the treaty of 382.

So far, my favorite secondary works are "Failure of Empire" by Noel Lensky, and "The Roman Empire of Ammianus" by John Matthews.
I was skeptical about Lensky at first because I had been an avid reader of Peter Heather's for years, but I actually found Lensky's reasoning to be very sound.

[D B Campbell]

Roger Tomlin ... (unknowingly) replicated Hoffman's theory in small.

On p. 278, he states that "this paper was planned and written before I could study the monumental survey by D. Hoffmann. Fuller and sometimes different treatment of much that is discussed here ... will be found in its more than 800 pages." I don't think Tomlin ever reviewed the Hoffmann opus -- that would be an interesting read.

[Longovicium]

Yes, I find Ammianus equally frustrating. His literary style overwhelms the strategical too much and elements of the battle and the lead up and aftermath are vague in important places.

Re Julius in the Oriens, Irfan Shahid argues persuasively that this is the same Magister who was defeated by the Tanukh foederati under Mavia. These latter only reconciled themselves back into the Roman fold after Valens allowed them to raise an Orthodox Bishop named Moses over them. These foederati then served Valens as auxiliaries in the Gothic campaign up to and after Adrianople. Shahid argues that (not always convincingly in my humble opinion) they fought successfully in skirmish operations before Valens advanced out from Constantinople (using Zosimus) and were the remnants after the battle who 'saved' the City from the Gothic onslaught later.

I know academic opinion in some circles argues that Zosimus has simply misplaced the Saracen activity from after the battle to before hand but Shahid leaves open the probability that Arab foederati under a deputy of Mavia accompanied Valens in the main battle array north to Adrianople and survived enough afterward to engage the entire Gothic host outside the walls of Constantinople - enough for Ammianus to deliver a vignette of the blood-thirsty Arab cutting a Goth's throat.

What is curious in Ammianus is his entire silence on the Mavia/Tanukh revolt in general (at least 2 standing Roman armies were defeated in the field) and the singling out of the Arab warrior's action ( a case of tha'r or Arab revenge perhaps?) while remaining silent on Valen's widow (if she knew that then) Dominica arming the populace out of her own pocket to defend the walls.

If Shahid is right - and I think it probable as we know Arab foederati were in the vicinity after the defeat - then a sizable Arab contingent operated in the battle - and given Ammianus's silence on the Arab revolt earlier under Mavia - may have been the cavalry who failed to support the left wing which advanced up to the laager. Perhaps the blood-drinking was atonement . . . I speculate obviously.

Re: Theodosius' defeat - my own personal opinion is hinted at by Ammianus - I always found it curious that modern scholars tend to emphasise the loss in the Roman army at the brigade/legio level as one reason for the supposed decline in the Roman Army and its (again supposed) barbarisation. Yet interestingly Ammianus only briefly mentions the actual losses - and then in a curiously circumspect form in terms of men who survived - however, he lists exactly the number of officers lost (including a reference to the son of one of his idols). This is a clue I think - and Ammianus is telling us that it was the loss precisely not of men in numbers but of top echelon officers that crippled any subsequent rebuild under Theodosius. Troops could be raised easily enough but the lack of experienced commanders would be a serious handicap in my opinion. Just a thought!

[Robert Vermaat]

Very intersting stuff guys, please keep us posted.

As to Hoffmann, I still think that he was not so very wrong as many subsequent reviewers have stated him to have been.
Sure, more recent discoveries have proved him to be wrong about the supposed division of Julian's army as the very first occasion of 'iuniores' and 'seniores'. Also, his absolute theories about the movement of several units may be criticised. But on the whole, his studies are still very useful.

As to names and dating, beware! Some units can be dated by name (e.g. Honorienses), but that need not mean that the unit was newly raised - it could also have been renamed.

If anyone could provide me with a copy of Tomlin, I'd be most grateful!

[Holtingar]

That is very interesting. Lensky put forward a similar scenario with regard to the Saracens, and in fact, I just checked the references and he credits Irfan Shahid several times in his passages dealing with the Saracens.

Lensky discussed another obscure detail that he pieced together from passages in Zosimus, Eunapius, and the letters of Basil of Caesarea: There was another uprising going on in Isauria very shortly after Valentinian's death in 375. Valens was at this time edging towards a war with Shapur, so it came as an irritating surprise to him. This Isaurian revolt overcame the Limitanei and spread as far as Lycia and central Anatolia, disrupting communication lines between Europe and Asia. Valens was forced to send comitatensian units under Saturninus to deal with the disruption just as he was planning to increase Roman military presence in Armenia. The revolt was put down fairly quickly, but the aftermath must have created a delicate balance in the area; The units sent to deal with the uprising felt obliged to remain at Iconium in Anatolia where they could continue to monitor the situation all the way up to 377. This, Lensky claims, throws some much needed light on Ammianus' comment about the shortages of manpower that made the decision to allow the Tervingi to cross the Danube all the more attractive. But at the same time, it also ensured that he couldn't free up sufficient military strength to oversee the Danube Crossing in 376. Then, as you mentioned, the Saracens revolted under Mavia in 377, right when Valens would have been planning to depart for Thrace. Ammianus' failure to mention either of these is easily explained by his overall attitude towards Valens. He harshly criticizes Valen's judgment and integrity multiple occasions. I find that when criticizing another's actions, people often tend to overlook the context and problems that the individual had to deal with. Ammianus would appear to be no exception

The thing that I found fascinating about Lensky's book was the clarity with which he illustrated the multitude of problems that Valens was constantly forced to deal with. Valens was not particularly bright, and he was obviously no Diocletian, but the mass of simultaneous crises that he was forced to confront would have overwhelmed even the best of emperors.

[Longovicium]

My apologies for the late reply but my monitor burnt out its capacitors a week ago on Sunday and I only just got it back repaired from the (rip-off) PC shop on Tuesday!

The Isaurian affair is very interesting and as you say throws much light on the context around the battle of Adrianople. I agree with you on the evaluation of Valens - he is often criticized for his Arian policy (leading to at least the major Saraceni foederate revolt as well as wide-spread ecclesiastical unrest) yet follows in the footsteps of Constantius before him while his brother steps aside from religious involvement, is left with the richest half of the Empire and with it a more militarized and sophisticated enemy on the Sassanid front, and attempts to settle the Gothic issue through two previous campaigns (losing his helmet in the process!) and the subsequent campaign leading to his death. I find Ammianus overly contemptuous of Valens in part I expect because of his elitism and bias towards true 'Roman' emperors at the expense of the 'boorish' Valens and Valentinian.

[sonic]

Last night I put all of the units listed in the Notitia into a Microsoft Access database and, coupled with a close reading of Appendix II in A.H.M. Jones' "The Later Roman Empire", am now making an attempt to narrow the possibilities. The database is broken down into columns as follows:

| Number in N.D. | Unit Name | Name Variants | Unit Class | Imperial Jurisdiction | Commanding Officer | Other Commanding Officers | Distribution | Era/Commissioning Emperor | Notes |

I may need to add a few more columns as the work progresses, especially to help isolate duplicates and copyist's errors, but these seemed to be the most important qualifiers.
Again, if anyone can help me out with either finding a listing of Hoffmann's hypothetical 3rd-quarter-of-the-4th-Century army, or even just an online source that sheds some light on this I would greatly appreciate it. I'm especially interested in learning the names of "the fifty" Hoffmann purports to have been split by the Val. Bros. and of those, the units destroyed at Hadrianople. I know his theory may be disputed with some very sound reasoning, but it's still a helpful tool for understanding the circumstances.

Also, if anyone is interested I can upload the database to a server somewhere so people on the forum can use it once it's complete.

Ye Gods reading this has brought back memories!

I created a similar database in the mid 1990's as part of my MA, which was an analysis of the evidence for the Cornuti etc. being 'German'. I haven't used it since, and the computer's crashed/been replaced several times since then. I'll try to remember to have a dig around in my older CDs to see if I can find it. Wouldn't hold out much hope, though ...

PS Sorry about the delay - pressures of work and all!

[Holtingar]

Cool, if you manage to find it I would definitely be interested.
I finally found a copy (thanks to Robert of Vortigern Studies) of Hoffmann, so when it arrives in the mail, I can start tagging units with more detailed information.
Tomlin's article, though short, is a treasure trove of info. He has a very handy list of units mentioned in Ammianus with the chapter/page for each - that will save me a lot of re-reading.
I'm also considering attaching a hyperlink to a reproduction of each unit's shield where available.

[D B Campbell]

I finally found a copy (thanks to Robert of Vortigern Studies) of Hoffmann, so when it arrives in the mail, I can start tagging units with more detailed information.

I pity your poor postman.