08-25-2023, 11:29 AM
I've just finished reading the new book by Anthony Kaldellis and Marion Kruse, The Field Armies of the East Roman Empire, 361-630 (CUP, 2023), which argues that the eastern section of the Notitia Dignitum, rather than dating to AD395 as traditionally believed, was in fact drafted around AD450 and reflects military organisational innovations of the 440s.
Initially I was quite skeptical of the idea, but the authors make a very good case, and by the end I was fairly convinced. Essentially their argument boils down to three central points:
1. the military titles that appear in the eastern Notitia, relating to the five main field armies, do not appear in other sources until the 440s. Instead, documents from the later 4th until the mid 5th century continue to use simpler titles, similar to those found in Ammianus Marcellinus and in the western section of the Notitia. There is no evidence for magistri in praesentalis before the mid 5th century, or of the armies they supposedly commanded.
2. the disposition of forces in the eastern Notitia, with the bulk of troops stationed in the Balkans and hinterland of Constantinople and relatively few in the east, would appear to reflect the situation in the 440s, when the eastern european provinces were threatened by Attila.
3. (most convincing, I think) there is no evidence for a large army in the eastern empire during this period; the field armies of the Notitia would easily have crushed the uprising of Gainas and repelled Uldin and the early Hunnic incursions, without the need for expensive subsidies. Instead, various barbarian and mutineer groups seem to have operated on imperial territory with virtual impunity.
In the new reconstruction of the authors, the military strength of the eastern empire remained very limited for decades after Adrianople, with barbarian foederati acting as the field armies (as Synesius suggests), in support of a small central comitatus and regional duces commanding frontier forces - essentially the old tetrarchic sytem, but with the regular units 'operating well below their paper strength... [or as] empty shells' (p.44). Only in the 440s did the eastern government cease to pay subsidies and rely on foederati, and instead rebuild the armed forces on a reformed model.
This new system, the authors suggest, itself lasted only a few decades before being superseded in the early 6th century. They have little to say, meanwhile, about the western armies, or the western Notitia, but "…in light of the arguments advanced in this book, scholars must now consider if and how the information contained in the western Notitia can be reconciled with an eastern document that reflects military arrangements around 450." (p.178)
It's a good question - I've long considered that the western Notitia is itself a grab-bag of contradictory bits of pieces from perhaps a hundred years of military development. It still includes a garrison for Britain, but seems to have been updated in some places to c.420. Snippets like the unit list in Claudian, on the other hand, suggest that parts of it might have been accurate for c.398 at least. But, if the eastern section is dated as Kaldellis and Kruse suggest, we could maybe look at three possibiities:
A. the western section also dates to c.440, and despite all the evidence in literary sources and everything else the western empire still had a large and well organised army at that time with troops stationed on Hadrian's Wall, the upper Danube and the African limes. (none too likely, I think!)
B. the western section is much older, with heaps of anachronisms, but for some reason was appended to the new revised and updated eastern Notitia.
C. the western section is not intended as a contemporary army list but rather a projection of possible future strength, based on a collection of much earlier western sources in places dating back a century. This could reflect the increasingly custodial or even proprietorial attitude of the eastern court towards the west in the 440s and onward.
I'd be interested to know if anyone has any alternative ideas, or any views on Kaldellis and Kruse's book more generally. How widely accepted is this new thesis likely to become?
Initially I was quite skeptical of the idea, but the authors make a very good case, and by the end I was fairly convinced. Essentially their argument boils down to three central points:
1. the military titles that appear in the eastern Notitia, relating to the five main field armies, do not appear in other sources until the 440s. Instead, documents from the later 4th until the mid 5th century continue to use simpler titles, similar to those found in Ammianus Marcellinus and in the western section of the Notitia. There is no evidence for magistri in praesentalis before the mid 5th century, or of the armies they supposedly commanded.
2. the disposition of forces in the eastern Notitia, with the bulk of troops stationed in the Balkans and hinterland of Constantinople and relatively few in the east, would appear to reflect the situation in the 440s, when the eastern european provinces were threatened by Attila.
3. (most convincing, I think) there is no evidence for a large army in the eastern empire during this period; the field armies of the Notitia would easily have crushed the uprising of Gainas and repelled Uldin and the early Hunnic incursions, without the need for expensive subsidies. Instead, various barbarian and mutineer groups seem to have operated on imperial territory with virtual impunity.
In the new reconstruction of the authors, the military strength of the eastern empire remained very limited for decades after Adrianople, with barbarian foederati acting as the field armies (as Synesius suggests), in support of a small central comitatus and regional duces commanding frontier forces - essentially the old tetrarchic sytem, but with the regular units 'operating well below their paper strength... [or as] empty shells' (p.44). Only in the 440s did the eastern government cease to pay subsidies and rely on foederati, and instead rebuild the armed forces on a reformed model.
This new system, the authors suggest, itself lasted only a few decades before being superseded in the early 6th century. They have little to say, meanwhile, about the western armies, or the western Notitia, but "…in light of the arguments advanced in this book, scholars must now consider if and how the information contained in the western Notitia can be reconciled with an eastern document that reflects military arrangements around 450." (p.178)
It's a good question - I've long considered that the western Notitia is itself a grab-bag of contradictory bits of pieces from perhaps a hundred years of military development. It still includes a garrison for Britain, but seems to have been updated in some places to c.420. Snippets like the unit list in Claudian, on the other hand, suggest that parts of it might have been accurate for c.398 at least. But, if the eastern section is dated as Kaldellis and Kruse suggest, we could maybe look at three possibiities:
A. the western section also dates to c.440, and despite all the evidence in literary sources and everything else the western empire still had a large and well organised army at that time with troops stationed on Hadrian's Wall, the upper Danube and the African limes. (none too likely, I think!)
B. the western section is much older, with heaps of anachronisms, but for some reason was appended to the new revised and updated eastern Notitia.
C. the western section is not intended as a contemporary army list but rather a projection of possible future strength, based on a collection of much earlier western sources in places dating back a century. This could reflect the increasingly custodial or even proprietorial attitude of the eastern court towards the west in the 440s and onward.
I'd be interested to know if anyone has any alternative ideas, or any views on Kaldellis and Kruse's book more generally. How widely accepted is this new thesis likely to become?
Nathan Ross
