03-02-2016, 02:12 PM
(03-02-2016, 12:15 PM)Robert Vermaat Wrote: so now you see the first detachment as the seniores and the second detachment as the inuiores? That's different from the first theory but I can go along with that.
It's the same theory - I just tried to explain it better!
My first attempt was this:
"c320s... detachment... taken into the field army as an independent unit... known as Moesiaci.
c.350s: A second detachment... named Moesiaci Iuniores to distinguish them from the earlier unit, which takes the [i]Seniores title."[/i]
(03-02-2016, 12:15 PM)Robert Vermaat Wrote: But how about a third detachment? Another iuniores?
Iuniores Gallicani!
(not used previously, perhaps, as the situation in Gaul was fine at the time and the army there required no dedicated reinforcement?)
(03-02-2016, 12:15 PM)Robert Vermaat Wrote: we can't trust the military sources to give us 100% correct details and allowing us to draw conclusions from them.
True enough. We're trying to patch together a theory from a few comments in Ammianus, a very late official document, and the few tombstone inscriptions we can put a date on. If any or all of the above are faulty or omit details, the theories collapse!
Nathan Ross