02-11-2014, 07:59 PM
I recently purchased a copy of Heather and Matthews' 'The Goths in the Fourth Century' (LUP, 1991) in which Themistius' Orations 8 and 10 are translated (for the first time, I believe). Both orations were given under the reign of Valens. The first during the Quinquennalia of Valens (March 26th 368). The second after the 'peace' of 369). Both orations provide a fascinating insight into imperial military and civilian priorities. 10 gives a long excursus on Valen's efforts to rebuild and fortify the Danube frontier and illustrates in detail how the Augustus dealt with the abuses and neglect on the frontier. It really gives an example of both propaganda and information combining together.
Oration 8 however, in detailing Valen's efforts to subdue the Goths, provides one very interesting - and to my mind never-quoted - insight into the Roman army at that time. It is a small reference and I quote it here in full:
" . . .Only yesterday I saw an army better trained that any chorus (Themistius was present at Valens headquarters during the offensive of 368). Homer is obviously quite outdated in admiring Menesthenes as one fit to handle infantry and cavalry. The poet did not know the ordered movement of your phalanx, the instinctive understanding of your cavalry or those trained to live with their weapons, nor was he ever struck with joyful amazement at such a sight. He would, I believe, mock the story of the line and dove, having seen the mobile archers who, leaving the reins to their steeds, shoot more accurately than those with their feet on the ground . . ."
The line and the dove refers to a story where a dove is tethered for archery practice but one archer hits the tether and not the dove - and the next archer hits the flying dove so show off his skill. Themistius is saying that Homer himself would mock this story as insufficient proof of skill if he had seen Valen's equites sagittarii.
Often in this period Julian and Ammianus are quoted in reference to the Later Roman Army - but what I find fascinating here is that of all the troop types Themistius could have singled out (cataphracts, auxilia, or federates, for example), he praises the horse archers above all. This makes me wonder why these troop types were praised- given that what Themistius is declaiming is an oration approved a priori by the consilium of Valens? Were these troops (And I am thinking of the Scola scutariorum sagittariorum in particular) standing out or newly formed here?
If this is true, then a recent article I read highlighted that Iberian exiles formed the corp of the Scola scutariorum sagittariorum and that Bacurius was the first commander of that unit. This article was suggested to me by Renatus and Diocle. It can be found here:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27...3490441553
Bacurius commanded the Scola scutariorum sagittariorum at Adrianople and was an Iberian king in exile. He later fell at the battle of the Frigidus.
Wiki describes him as follows:
Bacurius was a Roman general and a member of the royal family of Iberia (modern Georgia) mentioned by several Greco-Roman authors of the 4th and 5th centuries. It is accepted, but not universally, that all these refer to the same person, an Iberian "king" or "prince", who joined the Roman military ranks. Scholarly opinion is divided whether Bacurius can be identified with one of the kings named Bakur (Georgian: ბაკური), attested in medieval Georgian annals, who might have taken refuge in territories obtained by the Eastern Roman Empire during the Roman–Persian Wars that were fought over the Caucasus.[1]
Ammianus Marcellinus, Tyrannius Rufinus, and Zosimus report that Bacurius was "king of Iberians", but Gelasius of Caesarea does not call him king, but merely scion of the kings of Iberia. Bacurius was a tribunus sagittariorum at the Battle of Adrianople with the Goths in 378 and then served as dux Palaestinae and comes domesticorum until 394, when he became magister militum and commanded a "barbarian" contingent in Emperor Theodosius I’s (r. 379–395) campaign against the Roman usurper Eugenius and met his death, according to Zosimus, at the Battle of the Frigidus. According to Socrates of Constantinople, Bacurius had also fought in Theodosius's earlier campaign against Magnus Maximus.[2][3]
All contemporary sources are unequivocal in praising Bacurius's military skills and courage. Rufinus, whom Bacurius visited several times on the Mount of Olives and served him as a source of Iberia’s conversion to Christianity, describes the general as a pious Christian, while the rhetorician Libanius, with whom Bacurius held correspondence, evidently regards him as a pagan and praises him both as a soldier and a man of culture.[2][4]
The very next section of the Oration is a clincher:
" . . . It is not surprising that Priam called Agamemnon blessed for bringing so many Phrygian soldiers to Greece. Now in your case, there is a man who, rejecting his ancestral throne - and that of no obscure kingdom - comes as a wanderer to bear arms; a good omen of victories in the east . . ."
Heather and Matthews wonder if this is a specific reference to Bacurius and a look to future victories over the Persians in the east (that were not to happen). The article referenced above alludes to the possibility that the imperial guard cavalry unit of archers was formed specifically from Iberian and Cholchian exiles fleeing from Shapur's aggression after the collapse of Roman control over that area with Julian's death. The article argues that 2 scholae units remain unduplicated in the west under Valentinian - the archers and the clibanarii - and argues that both these guards units were design to receive Persian and Iberian exiles. If this is so, then Oration 8 throws a specific light into this period and allows us to examine the idea that Bacurius arrived with his retainers and followers - his comitatus - as the offensive against the Goths began in 368. They were incorporated into the guard regiments as a unit of specialist armoured horse archers under their prince/king in exile and honoured as a result in front of the emperor via the Oration of Themistius.
Oration 8 allows us the possibility of dating the creation of a specific elite unit under its first commander (and not the last Iberian one - later Pharasmanes and then Subarmachius, it has been argued, also commanded this unit). It bestows praise both of a unit and a few lines later a single king who we know went on to command those very archers just praised by Themistius.
I believe Themistius is deliberately linking these two comments and illustrating the glory that Valens is able to accrue under his reign and in the war against the Goths.
Oration 8 however, in detailing Valen's efforts to subdue the Goths, provides one very interesting - and to my mind never-quoted - insight into the Roman army at that time. It is a small reference and I quote it here in full:
" . . .Only yesterday I saw an army better trained that any chorus (Themistius was present at Valens headquarters during the offensive of 368). Homer is obviously quite outdated in admiring Menesthenes as one fit to handle infantry and cavalry. The poet did not know the ordered movement of your phalanx, the instinctive understanding of your cavalry or those trained to live with their weapons, nor was he ever struck with joyful amazement at such a sight. He would, I believe, mock the story of the line and dove, having seen the mobile archers who, leaving the reins to their steeds, shoot more accurately than those with their feet on the ground . . ."
The line and the dove refers to a story where a dove is tethered for archery practice but one archer hits the tether and not the dove - and the next archer hits the flying dove so show off his skill. Themistius is saying that Homer himself would mock this story as insufficient proof of skill if he had seen Valen's equites sagittarii.
Often in this period Julian and Ammianus are quoted in reference to the Later Roman Army - but what I find fascinating here is that of all the troop types Themistius could have singled out (cataphracts, auxilia, or federates, for example), he praises the horse archers above all. This makes me wonder why these troop types were praised- given that what Themistius is declaiming is an oration approved a priori by the consilium of Valens? Were these troops (And I am thinking of the Scola scutariorum sagittariorum in particular) standing out or newly formed here?
If this is true, then a recent article I read highlighted that Iberian exiles formed the corp of the Scola scutariorum sagittariorum and that Bacurius was the first commander of that unit. This article was suggested to me by Renatus and Diocle. It can be found here:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27...3490441553
Bacurius commanded the Scola scutariorum sagittariorum at Adrianople and was an Iberian king in exile. He later fell at the battle of the Frigidus.
Wiki describes him as follows:
Bacurius was a Roman general and a member of the royal family of Iberia (modern Georgia) mentioned by several Greco-Roman authors of the 4th and 5th centuries. It is accepted, but not universally, that all these refer to the same person, an Iberian "king" or "prince", who joined the Roman military ranks. Scholarly opinion is divided whether Bacurius can be identified with one of the kings named Bakur (Georgian: ბაკური), attested in medieval Georgian annals, who might have taken refuge in territories obtained by the Eastern Roman Empire during the Roman–Persian Wars that were fought over the Caucasus.[1]
Ammianus Marcellinus, Tyrannius Rufinus, and Zosimus report that Bacurius was "king of Iberians", but Gelasius of Caesarea does not call him king, but merely scion of the kings of Iberia. Bacurius was a tribunus sagittariorum at the Battle of Adrianople with the Goths in 378 and then served as dux Palaestinae and comes domesticorum until 394, when he became magister militum and commanded a "barbarian" contingent in Emperor Theodosius I’s (r. 379–395) campaign against the Roman usurper Eugenius and met his death, according to Zosimus, at the Battle of the Frigidus. According to Socrates of Constantinople, Bacurius had also fought in Theodosius's earlier campaign against Magnus Maximus.[2][3]
All contemporary sources are unequivocal in praising Bacurius's military skills and courage. Rufinus, whom Bacurius visited several times on the Mount of Olives and served him as a source of Iberia’s conversion to Christianity, describes the general as a pious Christian, while the rhetorician Libanius, with whom Bacurius held correspondence, evidently regards him as a pagan and praises him both as a soldier and a man of culture.[2][4]
The very next section of the Oration is a clincher:
" . . . It is not surprising that Priam called Agamemnon blessed for bringing so many Phrygian soldiers to Greece. Now in your case, there is a man who, rejecting his ancestral throne - and that of no obscure kingdom - comes as a wanderer to bear arms; a good omen of victories in the east . . ."
Heather and Matthews wonder if this is a specific reference to Bacurius and a look to future victories over the Persians in the east (that were not to happen). The article referenced above alludes to the possibility that the imperial guard cavalry unit of archers was formed specifically from Iberian and Cholchian exiles fleeing from Shapur's aggression after the collapse of Roman control over that area with Julian's death. The article argues that 2 scholae units remain unduplicated in the west under Valentinian - the archers and the clibanarii - and argues that both these guards units were design to receive Persian and Iberian exiles. If this is so, then Oration 8 throws a specific light into this period and allows us to examine the idea that Bacurius arrived with his retainers and followers - his comitatus - as the offensive against the Goths began in 368. They were incorporated into the guard regiments as a unit of specialist armoured horse archers under their prince/king in exile and honoured as a result in front of the emperor via the Oration of Themistius.
Oration 8 allows us the possibility of dating the creation of a specific elite unit under its first commander (and not the last Iberian one - later Pharasmanes and then Subarmachius, it has been argued, also commanded this unit). It bestows praise both of a unit and a few lines later a single king who we know went on to command those very archers just praised by Themistius.
I believe Themistius is deliberately linking these two comments and illustrating the glory that Valens is able to accrue under his reign and in the war against the Goths.
Francis Hagan
The Barcarii
The Barcarii