Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Late Roman Army Grade/Rank List under Anastasius
(06-21-2017, 05:59 AM)Steven James Wrote: I have been following the ND, which lists titles such as Equites, Numerus, Vexillation etc. Why would they have distinct titles when the terms are synonymous?... You speak with authority that a vexillation is a numerus. What proof can you provide?

You will notice in the ND the phrase qui numeri ex praedictis per infrascriptas provincias habeantur is followed by a list of military units (numeri), including legions.

The list includes the subheading item Vexillationes, which is followed by a number of Equites unit (e.g.Equites Promoti Seniores, Equites Cornuti Seniores, etc). The equites serve in vexillationes, which are numeri, just as the other units of various types are numeri.

Two inscriptions to the same military unit refer to it by these different titles: vexil(latione) eq(uitum) Stablesianorum (CIL 05, 04376) and n(umeri) eq(uitum) Stabl(e)s(ianorum) (AE 1974, 00342). A number of other units called vexillationes and Equites in the ND are called numeri equitum on inscriptions (e.g. CIL 05, 08760: numero equitum bracchiatorum.)


(06-21-2017, 05:59 AM)Steven James Wrote: The information is too fragmented.

The information is very far from 'fragmented' - it is our interpretation of the information which is difficult.


(06-21-2017, 02:46 AM)Marcel Frederik Schwarze Wrote: the unit cannot - at least to my opinion and reseach - be a template for other units. For this, the regiment is too individual.

Certainly it appears to be quite individual - and maybe unusual for its period. But with the almost complete lack of detailed information on unit numbers and sizes for the preceding two hundred years, I still believe we can potentially learn a great deal from this document. I confess that my interest is more in the army of the 4th-early 5th century, and as such the evidence for survivals of previous practice, and potential innovations, contained in the Perge inscription is far more interesting that whatever it might tell us about the situation c.AD500!

The apparent size of an ordinarius command at c.100 men, coupled with the relatively low status of the ordinarius himself - compared to the centurion of the principiate - and the incorporation of various other grades (augustales and flaviales) into the subunits is particularly illuminating, and points to some significant differences with earlier army organisation, despite the obvious similarities.
Nathan Ross
Reply
Taking this obsession on to the nth degree, I've been trying to work out an arrangement of the subunits in the legion/numerus, rather as Francis did in this post.

It's very tricky, of course, as we have all sorts of peculiar numbers for the different grades - 20/30/70 Augustales, 60/140 Flaviales (I haven't even dared think about the semissales and duplares!). If we assume a division of the main infantry strength into 10 subunits, or 'ordines', then these grades should somehow break down by tens - but how can this be done?

The only way I can make it roughly work is by taking the smallest possible legion size - 159 munifices. If we take the Veredarii alone to be the cavalry, and add the vexillarii and the two bucinators (cavalry hornblowers, according to Lydus) and the three mensores to their number (pure speculation - I would think 'surveyers' might need horses, but more importantly I need them to make up a round number!), then the remaining men minus ordinarii and tribunes would total 960.

Divided by the ten infantry ordines this gives an 'ordo' size of 96 men.

The twelve Augustales, of three different grades, could therefore be file leaders, front rank fighters (Vegetius's antesignani) and caputs contubernii (perhaps also campidoctores: V's campigeni), each leading a file/contubernium of 8 men.

The first file, headed by one of the two senior Augustales, also contains the signifer and the six senior Flaviales. The rest of the front rank is made up of Augustales Alii, with the second senior Augustale taking the right front position. The two righthand files are completed by the fourteen Flaviales Alii in two groups of seven. This way every file is led by a man senior to those beneath him. The optio, imaginifer and hornblower are added to the other files (perhaps in those led by the 5-annona Augustales Alii), and the rest of the array is composed of the various duplares, semissales and munifices.

It's complex, but it does actually appear to work. I can determine no similar arrangement with any other figure than 159 munifices, incidentally!

Here's what it looks like (using a modified version of Gary Breuggeman's graphic again):

   

With the two files of Flaviales Alii removed, this would look very much like the old 80-man legion century of the Principiate. Which may suggest that at some point the basic century was enlarged by the addition of various senior soldier/NCO grades, as Vegetius says: the Flaviales and Augustales were 'added to the legions'.

The cavalry is not quite as neat, unfortunately - we have 290 of them, led by ten ordinarii. I suppose light cavalry would be less likely to have a regular 'formation', but if we take the vexillarius out of the main body the rest do at least break down as 4x7. Not perfect, and it would be better to have the five senior Veredarii as file leaders. But this is what it looks like:

   

That's the whole legion at least, with a full strength of 1272 including officers, not including an unknown number of supernumerary clerics, craftsmen, medical personnel, etc.

So this might be something like the arrangement of this very odd 'Perge Legion' - and perhaps unique to it. On the other hand the reality might have been something completely different!

[Image: smile.png]

   
Nathan Ross
Reply
My only comment would be that I would expect one rank of senior-ish soldiers to act as file closers.
Timothee.
Reply
Nathan,

I like the ordering here as an exercise and I think the Perge slabs as a whole will yield up more insights in time. Especially as the article by Onur has only officially been in the public domain for a few weeks.

Your outline has acted as a provocation, however, on two levels. The first is one which has rankled with me from the early days and that is the question of the Veredarii. I still can't quite accept that this is a legion with such a huge integral cavalry component and one which is referred to in such a specific manner. Apart from Hyginus and the generic use of the word, has this descriptor appeared at all in the later Roman context to indicate a regular body of cavalry? If I recollect correctly were not the Veredarii described by Hyginus a stand alone unit and not a component of a larger one? I want to force that word into a new context such as light infantry or lanciarii but have no evidence for it. Anastasius clearly uses the grievances of this one unit to eradicate the injustices heap upon it - while also extending that eradication across a whole horizontal plane of the army. This unit's grade and rank formalisation also becomes a template for units of the same type. That would mean that either the palatinae, the comitanses, or the pseudo-comitantenses legions all included a huge light scouting cavalry component.

Something in me resists this hypothesis but how else can one reconcile the Veredarii???

The second provocation (I use the term lightly, of course!) is two-fold. Namely, why are we assuming that the grades are spread uniformly through the centuries? Might it not be possible that these grades were awarded on distinction under the eyes of the line officers and that as a result each century might have a disproportionate number within its ranks? This would lead to a fierce rivalry between centuries in the legion as each miles knows that only a certain number of each grade may be permitted in total within the legion. Just a thought, really . . .

The second aspect is your positioning of the flaviales on the flanks. You have a double file of flaviales on the right flank of each century. If we accede to the idea that these grades were evenly distributed throughout each century and that the flaviales represented a higher grade of legionary based on fighting skills and valour under arms then perhaps that inner file on the right flank would be better distributed as the rear rank. I think it is Mauricius or that anonymous writer (the military engineer who wrote under Justinian) who describes the files and ranks where the rear rank is also heavily armed in case the century/unit is flanked and attacked from behind? Having a strong rear line of armoured veterans would allow a flanking attack to be stopped. Is it worth looking at the distribution with that in mind, I wonder?
Francis Hagan

The Barcarii
Reply
(06-23-2017, 06:53 PM)Timus Wrote: My only comment would be that I would expect one rank of senior-ish soldiers to act as file closers.

Yes, that would make sense. But I can't see a group of 10 (or 12, or 9) NCOs or senior men that could fill that role. Keeping the Augustales as file leaders seems sensible, as they would presumably have to be senior to all the other men in the file.

It did occur to me that the six senior Flaviales could each be attached to a double file of 16 men. Or that the three senior Augustales Alii could in turn join a quadruple file of 32... But how that would work I don't know.

Then I notice that the numbers of the semissales both divide by 8... although not (of course) by 10... and at that point the numbers are swimming before my eyes!

But I'd be interested to see if anyone could work out quite such a close concordance of the numbers in the lists using a figure greater than 159 munifices.
Nathan Ross
Reply
Oh that's weird - I posted a long reply about the rear ranks needing veteran soldiers (after Mauricius and Anonymous) yesterday but before Timus replied. Has it not been approved yet or something?
Francis Hagan

The Barcarii
Reply
(06-24-2017, 09:40 AM)Longovicium Wrote: Oh that's weird - I posted a long reply

Mysterious - but it looks like it's returned!


(06-23-2017, 07:09 PM)Longovicium Wrote: Your outline has acted as a provocation

Glad to hear it. That's the idea really. Perhaps a forum like this is the best place for these kind of hypotheses: serious historians are maybe less willing to indulge in baseless speculations! - and the wisdom of crowds (or however many of us want to get involved, anyway) might yield some interesting results. Plus it's fun, of course...



(06-23-2017, 07:09 PM)Longovicium Wrote: the question of the Veredarii.

Hmm, yes. I'd be very happy if somehow the veredarii could be made to disappear or turn into infantry... I tried to assume that for a while, but Marcel persuaded me otherwise (mostly in this post). It does seem that all the references to the word indicate either mounted couriers or some sort of light cavalry. It could be, as I suggested above, that this Perge unit was rather 'special', and had a particular organisation with regard to cavalry, which might, as you say, be one of the reasons for the existence of this detailed organisational schema.

My interest at the moment is rather in the internal structure of the infantry subunits ('ordines') - although that would doubtless change if we had to integrate the supposed-horsemen back into the numbers of infantry!



(06-23-2017, 07:09 PM)Longovicium Wrote: why are we assuming that the grades are spread uniformly through the centuries?

I think we have to assume that, actually - the numbering of Augustales and Flaviales seems far too regular to be otherwise: the combinations of two, three and six, and seven and fourteen look too deliberate not to work together in some way. If we're looking at a file of eight men (and the eightfold division of the two groups of semissales would suggest it) then the numbers would also have to link together into groups of eight somehow - or eight plus a file leader and closer, maybe.


(06-23-2017, 07:09 PM)Longovicium Wrote: perhaps that inner file on the right flank would be better distributed as the rear rank.

Yes, my diagram above surely needs all sorts of amendment! I did reconsider that the two files of seven Flaviales Alii would be better positioned on each flank, with the file of senior Flaviales in the centre backing up the signifer, one of the two senior Augustales and the Ordinarius (maybe). But we could juggle them around in various ways.

The file-closers are a problem. Putting one set of seven Flaviales Alii back there would still leave three awkward gaps. Having the six senior Flaviales backing up alternating files would work, but would throw the rest of the arrangement. And if we took the ten Augustales Alii out of the front rank and used them as file closers, they'd be senior to at least some of the men leading the files... It's a conundrum!

(I suppose the file closers could be drawn from the semissales - we have plenty of them - rather than being senior grades.)


I do like the proposal above, partly as it keeps our 'legion' fairly small, and close to the estimated size for a late military unit (c.1200 - although without those troublesome cavalry there's only 972...) Also because the infantry subunit looks so much like the old 80-man century with two added files, which suggests a sort of evolution rather than a completely new set-up.

But I know it's far from perfect, and could well be completely wrong. What we need now is for somebody to figure out a differently-sized legion structure that gets the internal numbers working as well, or better.
Nathan Ross
Reply
Francis wrote:

I still can't quite accept that this is a legion with such a huge integral cavalry component and one which is referred to in such a specific manner.
 
My sentiments also. In slab C there is not enough tribunes (two) for slab C to be pertaining to a legion, and the title of tribunus numeri cannot be ignored. I am heavily leaning towards an infantry numerus, a cavalry numerus, plus one ala. However, I am using data and the army organisation up to 410 AD. I lot could have changed by the Perge document.
 
Nathan wrote:
What we need now is for somebody to figure out a differently-sized legion structure that gets the internal numbers working as well, or better.
 
Only has long as that person is not me.
Reply
(06-28-2017, 02:42 PM)Steven James Wrote: there is not enough tribunes (two) for slab C to be pertaining to a legion, and the title of tribunus numeri cannot be ignored. I am heavily leaning towards an infantry numerus, a cavalry numerus, plus one ala.

From the 4th century onwards a legion was an infantry numerus, and Vegetius describes the two tribunes who commanded it. Three times on Slab B the unit is described as a legion, and/or the troops as legionaries.

The six tribunes of the old legion probably vanished in the later 3rd century with the demise of the old equestrian cursus (last attested under Probus); by the tetrarchic era the centurionate seems to have expanded to fill the gap, with double-cohort legion vexillations being commanded by praepositii of what appears to be centurion grade (i.e. centuriones ordinarii). The tribunes and prefects that commanded the 'new' legions of the 4th century seem to have risen from the ranks via the Protectores or been appointed directly, as Vegetius suggests.

A cavalry numerus (or vexillatio) could have numbered c.300 men, but there is only one unit on this list, under the command of the τριβοῦνος τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ (literally 'tribunus of the arithmos'). Either the cavalry are part of the numerus, or they are not actually cavalry! No reason to assume additional cavalry units are involved.
Nathan Ross
Reply
I am still perturbed by the Veredarii.

If we look at the surviving grade lists from this and later periods (which Robert handily collated in a pdf some posts back), we can see some overlap and similarities between Vegetius, the Anastasian Edict here, and that of Johannes Lydus somewhat later. This presents a neat development from both a historical perspective and also a literary one. Vegetius writes what might be called a diachronic tract in that it collates and attempts to synchronise material from a long period of Roman military history. The result is that he establishes both a 'model' Roman legion predicated on historical sources mapped onto the current one. Hence the confusion and contradiction in some of his statements. This legion both exists and has never existed, as it were. The Anastasian Edict is a synchronic text in its purest form; it stands to illustrate exactly what this type of legion shall muster in terms of its grades and the payment relations between them at that moment in history. It also - and this is crucial - stood as a monument to confirm that all legions of this type should hereafter follow this list. If we think of history as oscillating between the synchronic and diachronic modes this could not be a better example of the former. Finally, Lydus is consciously writing about the history of Roman institutions from an agenda focused around resurrecting the grandeur of the Praetorian Praefecture. As a result, he too is writing diachronically.

The Vegetian list occupies the later 4th century. The Anastasian one can be dated to within the last decade of the 5th century. Lydus wrote about 550 AD. As a result, all three lists preserve valuable indications of what was, is, and should be, if read cautiously.

Neither the Vegetian list nor the Lydian one has any mention of Veredarii. I believe Jerome's list also contains no mention of such a grade. Isn't that odd given the ranking of this grade in the list. The 275 veredarii fall directly after the 20 Optiones and above the 10 Imaginiferi.

This is both maddening to me but also perhaps a clue but a clue to what?

So, first things first:

The fact that the inscription refers to the legions indicates a universal or prescriptive legislation which should apply across all units belonging to this grade or type of legion while acknowledging that the inscription itself is in response to this legion's specific complaint. Given the time-frame proposed by Onur and the recent Isaurian incursions, it might be productive to look instead not at the numbers/grades as is but to the cause instead in order to get a grasp or handle on what exactly this 'legion' is.

Why this legion and why Perge? This legion - or rather an individual on its behalf, if I follow Onur reasoning here - raised a complaint and Anastasius used this as an opportunity to not only address this specific complaint but also to regulate across the legions of this grade. The edict erected at Perge was both legion-specific and also designed to be universal. Or at least that was the intent. So the question becomes what legion or individual had cause to break silence, as it were? What was happening that allowed this event to arise in the first place such that Anastasius could use it as part of his broader - and very successful - reforms of the Roman Army? Reforms that were so successful that it is generally held that that the Roman Army which a few years later defended the empire against Sassanian incursions was both professional and ably led. So much so, if I remember correctly, that recruiting rose in this period due to the attractiveness of serving under arms. In other words, what is the historical context here?

My instinct is that this might be a legionary numerus recently raised from a lower grade to a higher one and which, as a result, has been suffering abuse on a level not previously experienced. This vertical shift in grade produced a resentment which then percolated through over some years until it boiled over into the formal complaint, to use a clumsy metaphor. Other field army or palatine legions would be acculturated to the abuse and merely endure it. This unit didn't. Specific events brought its ranks out into the open and one or more individuals raised a complaint to the Augustus himself. The latter saw this as an opportunity to push through the reforms already developing after the Isaurian movement had been crushed. One complimented the other and the result was the Edict.

But it is important to understand that this would have taken time. An abuse or series of abuses predicated on holding back promotion or buying in/fast-tracking promotion must have built up over many years before its effect could result in such resentment, I think. This was not a legion which was promoted and then experienced a catastrophic collapse in morale. These things were incremental - perhaps even generational. So we would need to be looking for a legion which had been raised a grade and which then experienced a series of abuses over time which it had not previously been subjected to - or if it had, it had not experienced them in the manner it was now being subjected to.

Bear with me here.

If this conjecture may bear fruit, we should be looking for a legion raised from a distinctly lower grade to a significantly higher one. I state this because the level of abuse attracted the worst in the Late Roman Army and if that is the case then we would be looking perhaps at a limitanei unit being promoted up into the ranks of the field army or indeed the palatine comitatus itself.

So how does this relate to the issue of the Veredarii, I wonder?

Well, this is where I really strike out into speculation - and what better forum to do this in? What kind of legion would include within its ranks such a strong light ‘hunting’ cavalry component? These are Veredarii, after all, not contus or cataphract cavalry. Their descriptor points to skirmishing, hunting, harassing equites who would prefer the light missiles weapons such as javelins and bows. They are unarmoured, perhaps only carrying a scutum for protection - or why else be graded as Veredarii? These equites have not been hived off (yet) into discreet cavalry troops and stationed away from their parent legion and - more to the point - the slabs indicate that it is an established order that this type of legion should have a requisite number of light cavalry attached as part of its battle-order. Hence this legion can’t be one of the newer ones, I suspect.

So we are looking for two specific components here: A) a move (up presumably) from one legion grade to another and after a period of time a heavy catalogue of abuse which this legion had not previously been used to and B) a legion or unit which had traditionally included light cavalry as part of its make-up.

Interestingly enough, there are a number of new legions which were raised in the 4th century and garrisoned the Pontic and Armenian zones before transferring further afield - with some also being promoted from the limitanei grade up into that of the pseudo-comitatenses grade. These were the two Armenian legions eventually recorded in the ND under the Magister Militum per Orientum as the first two legions of pseudo-comitatenses. I mention these legions specifically because Armenia historically always had a special relationship with horse culture and that also there are strong indications during the reign of Valens that either an Armenian or a Iberian prince attached himself to the comitatus of the emperor while he was campaigning against the Goths in near the Danube and as a result this prince and his retinue were formally enrolled as a new schola unit - the Scola Scutariorum Sagittariorum. This again reinforces the strong tradition in Armenian/Iberian culture of light horse/archery. Libanius in his Oration 8 singles out these cavalry for praise in front of Valens, for example.

While I am speculating here, it is interesting that we might see in this legion a specific history which runs as follows: two Armenian legions are created and stationed in the frontier zones and include within their ranks a strong component of ‘Veredarii’ as a specific type. These legions later are involved in the march down the Euphrates with Julian but are still under the command of the old Dux Mesopotamia as limitanei legions. At some point subsequent to that disaster, the legions are upgraded into the field army list of the Magister Militum per Orientum as pseudo-comitatenses legions. As that list stands now, both Armenian legions occupy the top 2 places on the list of this grade under the Magister.

If the collation of the list is generally dated to circa 393 AD, then at some point prior to that these Armenian legions were upgraded into the field army under the Magister Militum per Orientum and relocated away from the now-lost trans-Tigritene provinces.

Is it possible one of these legions is the legion in question and the presence of the Edict was to regulate the order of the pseudo-comitatenses legions who had remained for a long period of time within the field army but which still retained an older limitanei ranking? This confusion of status would have to have been ratified at some point once it was understood that the legion was not going to return to its older frontier status. It was both a field army legion with all the perks which that entailed but still stood under the shadow of its older status. Hence, eventually, circa 490 AD, after mounting abuse and ambivalence the formal complaint.

The Anastasian Edict refers specifically to the status of all pseudo-comitatenses legions which had been withdrawn from the frontier zones and were now billeted under the remit of the Magisters. As such, these legions - and the Armenian ones in particular - brought with them a different legion structure which included a strong component of light cavalry.

After time, these pseudo-comitatenses were absorbed into the main field army and eventually lost that ‘inbetween’ status altogether. This might be why Lydus never refers to Veredarii and it would explain also why Vegetius never refers to them as he is describing a main line infantry legion.

Anyway, that’s the result of 2 morning mugs of coffee . . . Pure speculation and an over-eager typing reflex . . .
Francis Hagan

The Barcarii
Reply
Nathan wrote:

From the 4th century onwards a legion was an infantry numerus, and Vegetius describes the two tribunes who commanded it.
 
Can I impose on you and ask for the reference please.
 
Nathan wrote:
Three times on Slab B the unit is described as a legion, and/or the troops as legionaries.
 
Understood, but that is Slab B. I believe Slab C is a different matter, and more like auxiliaries to the legion.
 
You have also omitted the 10 signifii commanding 10 centuries in your model. How do you explain them?
 
Nathan wrote:
The six tribunes of the old legion probably vanished in the later 3rd century...
 
When there is no proof then it is speculation.
 
Nathan wrote:
with the demise of the old equestrian cursus (last attested under Probus); by the tetrarchic era the centurionate seems to have expanded to fill the gap, with double-cohort legion vexillations being commanded by praepositii of what appears to be centurion grade (i.e. centuriones ordinarii).
 
Praeositii appear in the principate and did not replace the office of the military tribune.
 
Nathan wrote:
The tribunes and prefects that commanded the 'new' legions of the 4th century seem to have risen from the ranks via the Protectores or been appointed directly, as Vegetius suggests.
 
But Vegetius does not formerly state this happened.
 
Nathan wrote:
A cavalry numerus (or vexillatio) could have numbered c.300 men, but there is only one unit on this list, under the command of the τριβονος το ριθμο (literally 'tribunus of the arithmos'). Either the cavalry are part of the numerus, or they are not actually cavalry!
 
Tribunus of the arithmos, now that is music to my ears. My hunch is the number of ordines in a infantry numerus is equivalent to the number of squadrons in a cavalry numerus.
 
Nathan wrote:
No reason to assume additional cavalry units are involved.
 
I find it better to explore all possibilities before dismissing without investigation. It the way I work...look at a coin from all angles.
Reply
(06-29-2017, 05:46 AM)Longovicium Wrote: The Anastasian Edict refers specifically to the status of all pseudo-comitatenses legions which had been withdrawn from the frontier zones and were now billeted under the remit of the Magisters. As such, these legions - and the Armenian ones in particular - brought with them a different legion structure which included a strong component of light cavalry.

Hmm, perhaps you should drink more of this coffee, Francis! Yes, I agree that seems like the most probable explanation.

Of course, we're rather hampered in our understanding by the complete lack (as far as I know) of evidence for ranks and unit structures within the regular palatine and comitatensis legions. Did they still use the traditional format - ordinarii commanding 'centuries', with optiones and signifers - as the legions and cohorts of the limitanei appear to have done? Or did they switch to the new rank structure used by the auxilia and field cavalry - centenarii, ducenarii, biarchi and circitores etc?

The particular status or composition of units from certain eastern frontier districts may explain the presence of the 'veredarii' - there may have been more of these, besides the Armeniaca ones. I've mentioned the martyr story of St Mercurius before: the note that '...the unit of those called the Martenses who were from Armenia Prima', and the martyr's father '...a Scythian by race; he served in the unit of the Martenses' might indicate that quite a few units with otherwise innocuous names may have been raised on the eastern frontier as well.


(06-29-2017, 08:53 AM)Steven James Wrote: Can I impose on you and ask for the reference please.

Same ref as Onur uses in his paper: Vegetius II.7. See also Sozomen Ecc.Hist I.8.


(06-29-2017, 08:53 AM)Steven James Wrote: I believe Slab C is a different matter

Why would the slabs be discussing different units? As Slab B says (Praeceptum Magistri Militum, 30-31): military legions should be under statute disposition... in accordance with the brevia arranged below (i.e on Slab C)


(06-29-2017, 08:53 AM)Steven James Wrote: You have also omitted the 10 signifii commanding 10 centuries in your model. How do you explain them?

Are you referring to Onur's statement on p.159?: "The 10 signiferi given in the list in the Perge inscription were each in charge of 10 centuriae of the unit."

I asked about this above as I didn't understand what it meant - I still don't! I suspect what Onur means is that each of the ten signiferi were allocated to one of the ten centuries. Do you understand it differently?


(06-29-2017, 08:53 AM)Steven James Wrote: Praeositii appear in the principate and did not replace the office of the military tribune.

They do appear in the principiate, and occasionally they are tribunes. However, after the middle of the third century all known praepositii are of centurion grade*. It seems likely that the old equestrian military tribunes did not survive the reforms of that era, and were phased out along with the equestrian cohort prefects and senatorial legati.

Frontier legions in the ND often have multiple praefecti, rather than tribunes. The new tribunes are unit commanders - either of field legions, auxilia numeri, cavalry vexillationes or frontier cohorts.

If you can find any reference to an old-style tribune in a legion after cAD250 please do let me know - I've been searching for some time!


[Edit] * - correction, there is one! AE 2010, 01246, a Diocletianic inscription from Brigetio: Vitalis tr[i]/bun(us) p(rae)p(ositus) lanci[a(riorum). Vitalis was a field army officer though, and his role may prefigure the appearance of tribunes commanding 'legions' shortly afterwards. Meanwhile, Macius Severinus (CIL 12, 1356) was tribuni legionis secundaes Italicaes in what appears to be a 3rd century inscription, although it's impossible to be any clearer as to the exact date for this one.


(06-29-2017, 08:53 AM)Steven James Wrote: Vegetius does not formerly state this happened.

See reference above.


(06-29-2017, 08:53 AM)Steven James Wrote: I find it better to explore all possibilities before dismissing without investigation.

I think the length and complexity of discussion in this thread so far suggests that nobody is dismissing possibilities. But we have to work with the information we possess, rather than trying to mould it to fit our preconceived ideas.
Nathan Ross
Reply
Nathan, I suspect that the pseudo-comitatenses legions which remained in the field armies of the Magisters and were not returned to the remit of the frontier Duxes occupied an odd hybrid ground in terms of rank and grades. While initially retaining the older structure of the pre-Diocletianic legions as time and events moved on the newer grades might have percolated into these legions and caused some confusion and hence exploitation. This might indeed be the underlying cause of the Edict: to fix that anomaly and regulate these legions in their status.

Interestingly enough, in reference to Hyginus and his 800 Pannonian Veredarii, Pavkovic, in his 1991 PhD thesis 'The Legionary Horsemen: An essay on the equites legionis and equites promoti' refers to the suggestion that these 800 light horse are in fact the legions' attached cavalry encamped as a single unit. He wonders if this might account for the fact that nowhere in Hyginus' model camp are any legionary cavalry. He also posits that the NDs equiti promoti are in fact legionary cavalry which were detached outwith the parent legion's province and so were cut adrift from the administrative link to their parent legion. Any detached equiti promoti which remained within the province never actually separated to form a distinct unit as they would still be attached to the admin staff of their legion. If this is true, then perhaps there were more equites promoti than is understood still attached to their legions? They only appear as distinct cavalry units once outside the provincial headquarters and are re-formed for pay and logistics reasons.

I am not too familiar with Hyginus but would these 800 'Pannonian' Veredarii equate to the legionary cavalry billeted in the Hyginian camp?

In terms of eastern legions incorporating light scouting and skirmishing 'Veredarii', certainly the Armenian/Pontic ones might have. Certainly, the ND lists a high proportion of cavalry units on the frontiers reflecting the need for fast, mobile, units over a wide variety of terrain. The fact that an Armenian or Iberian noble retinue enrols under Valens specifically as mounted, shielded, archers is telling, I think.
Francis Hagan

The Barcarii
Reply
Nathan wrote:

Why would the slabs be discussing different units?
 
I cannot answer that, but Slab C is so far removed from being a legion. Just look at the number of cornicines....8 for one legion, hardly, but it fits my organisation of a numerus.
 
Nathan wrote:
As Slab B says (Praeceptum Magistri Militum, 30-31): military legions should be under statute disposition... in accordance with the brevia arranged below (i.e on Slab C)
 
Many of those listed in Slab C are outside the legion’s organisation. And how did the Augustales and Fl.........and this is the moment when stopped writing because I had a sudden eureka moment. Now 2 hours later, I believe I have a good case as to the identity of the Augustales and Flaviales. The Augustales and Flaviales in the Perge document work by dividing them by 10.
 
20 Group 1 Augustales        2 men
30 Group 2 Augustales        3 men
70 Group 3 Augustales        7 men
60 Group 1 Flaviales           6 men
140 Group 2 Flaviales       14 men
Total                                  32 men
 
The 3 tier grouping of the Augustales is similar to the decuriones, the duplicarii and the sesquiplicarii of the principate. As a side note, Page 158 of the Perge paper: “Augustales are presented in three groups, the first group is 20 men and each received 6 annonae, the second is 30 men and each received 5 annonae.”
 
Then we find in the des rubus bellicis: Methods of Economy in Military Expenditure 5 2 “A member of the forces, after completing some years service and attaining to a rate of 5 annonae or more, should be granted an honourable discharge and go into retirement to enjoy his leisure, so that he may not burden the State by receiving these annonae any longer.”
 
Looks like it’s time to retire two of the three groups of Augustales. Dodgy
 
Nathan wrote:
I asked about this above as I didn't understand what it meant - I still don't! I suspect what Onur means is that each of the ten signiferi were allocated to one of the ten centuries. Do you understand it differently?
 
No, like you I am perplexed. Does the Perge slabs actually state this, or is it Onur’s conclusion?
 
Nathan wrote:
They do appear in the principiate, and occasionally they are tribunes. However, after the middle of the third century all known praepositii are of centurion grade*.
 
It could be that the old centurion rankings of primi ordines, superiores ordines, inferiores ordines, and infimi ordines have been given new names.
 
Nathan wrote:
I think the length and complexity of discussion in this thread so far suggests that nobody is dismissing possibilities. But we have to work with the information we possess, rather than trying to mould it to fit our preconceived ideas.
 
I would like to make it clear that I am not trying to mould the data to fit my preconceived ideas. In the last hour, because of a little eureka moment with the Augustales and Flaviales, I have changed the size of what I believed the cavalry numerus to be. I let the primary sources guide me, always have and always will.
Reply
(06-29-2017, 04:40 PM)Steven James Wrote: Slab C is so far removed from being a legion. Just look at the number of cornicines....

And yet this unit is clearly identified as both a legion and a numerus. This is unequivocal evidence, and rather than questioning it we should build our theories around it.


(06-29-2017, 04:40 PM)Steven James Wrote: Many of those listed in Slab C are outside the legion’s organisation.

However do you know this? Only the clerici et deputati would seem plausibly to be supernumeraries - we have to assume that the others fit into the organisation somewhow.



(06-29-2017, 04:40 PM)Steven James Wrote: The Augustales and Flaviales in the Perge document work by dividing them by 10.

Yep. That's been my working theory for some time now. [Image: wink.png]

Perhaps the single Ordinarius has two senior Augustales supporting him, the three senior Augustales Alii each have two senior Flaviales supporting them, and the seven junior Augustales Alii each have two junior Flaviales supporting them?...

Or maybe the numbers work some other way (my suggestion above somewhere does this, but it's far from perfect as there are no file closers). But clearly the different grades are articulated in some way within the ordo. The semissales and duplares are another matter - although their collected totals break down by 4, 8 and 16...



(06-29-2017, 04:40 PM)Steven James Wrote: Looks like it’s time to retire two of the three groups of Augustales. Dodgy

I wouldn't be too hasty! The document you quoted appears to be addressing a problem with higher-grade soldiers lingering in the army beyond their enlistment time in order to claim pay  - it surely doesn't mean that anyone earning 5 annonae or more should be immediately discharged. That way there would be no Ordinarii, or senior ranking soldiers at all.

If the Ordinarii could remain indefinitely in the army - as the old centurions apparently could do - then perhaps Augustales were trying to bend the rules by claiming this privilege as well?



(06-29-2017, 04:40 PM)Steven James Wrote: Does the Perge slabs actually state this, or is it Onur’s conclusion?

This is Onur's conclusion, as stated in his paper. Although I think it's more probably just a fault in expression.

Could it be that he meant "The 10 signiferi given in the list in the Perge inscription were each in charge of  [one of the] 10 centuriae of the unit" ? Since he seems to support ten centuriae of infantry elsewhere this would seem the most logical interpretation. Although 'in charge' seems a little strange as well.
Nathan Ross
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Late Roman Army during the 5th century Robert Vermaat 89 17,309 01-11-2024, 04:34 PM
Last Post: Magister_Officiorum13241
  Late Roman Army Ranks - Numeri/Limitanei jmsilvacross 14 1,741 11-17-2021, 01:42 PM
Last Post: Steven James
  Roman camps UK - is there a database or list? Steve Kaye 55 10,967 01-28-2021, 07:22 PM
Last Post: Alan316

Forum Jump: