Legionary Officers and NCOs - Late Roman Army (284 - 565 AD)

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Again I come hand out for help.

My year 10 elective course ("Sword and Sandal" - we have to have names like that, apparently to excite the kids' imaginations) on the history of the Roman Army develops apace. Albeit, it focuses on the Legions and grinds to a halt about 250 AD.

I gather the late army legions were (more or less) from lowest-to-highest-graded:

limitaneii;
pseudocomitatensis;
comitatensis;
(I think I've forgotten one here);
palatini.

However, regardless of grading, ranks to Centurio remained much the same as under the principate. To me that suggests there would still have been (bottom to top):

Decanus;
Tesserarius; Cornicen; Signifer; Optio; Aquilifer; Vexillarius; Imaginifer;
Centurio
(No, I can't believe this but I can't find anything to replace the structure).

And then??? Well, I imagine with legions from 500 to 1200 men strong (if that) there probably wouldn't have been an elite "First" cohort as in the principate. Were there any top-level centurions?

Going downwards, there's no legate - instead there's a praefect or tribune. No laticlavius or augusticlavii. Who assisted the legion commander in the late army?

Well, that's a few questions I have. Anyone?????

Thanks

SPC

[Urselius]

Centuriones seem to be called Centenarii, or Ordinarii

The Optio becomes the Biarchus

Most units seem to have a Tribunus as commander.

Possibly the "old legions" (originating in the Principate) may simply have come under the direct command of the local Dux, with their smaller sub-units commanded by tribunes. There doesn't seem to be very much information on the command structure of the 'old fashioned' units in the literature.

[Robert Vermaat]

A fast list of late Roman army ranks, under the understanding that the Roman army was not a clear-cut affair, and some ranks are without an earlier equivalent.

See here for the article, the list was incorrect at some points

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Thanks Martin and Robert

I've got a bit to trawl through there. I've just got onto Maurice's Strategikon and I'm trying to chew through the ranks.
[url:u087q7j9]http://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=en&id=ihDmbG-BhXsC&dq=strategikon&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=frlnjRpayb&sig=Uxng5g4TM_5h8wzz7TbNUD0OroY#PPA15,M1[/url] page 15.

I gather Maurice reformed the preceding army structure so I gloomily know he's not describing what may have existed in Justinian's time.

Anyhow - can't grumble. Back into it. Thanks again both and I'll put more thoughts up as they come to me.

And, all other input welcome - it really does seem to be a difficult area.

Cheers

Howard/SPC

[Robert Vermaat]

I gather Maurice reformed the preceding army structure so I gloomily know he's not describing what may have existed in Justinian's time.

The current opinion is that the Strategikon does not describe a totally reformed Roman army, but one which resembles the 4th-c. army in many ways, with some evolved practise added. The fact that Maurikios describes the infantry with far less words than the cavalry is also a tell-tale sign that there was not much new to explain.

[Ioannes_Ahenobarbus]

The fact that Maurikios describes the infantry with far less words than the cavalry is also a tell-tale sign that there was not much new to explain.

I'm glad you did not say "because infantry were not as important as cavalry"!

[Sean Manning]

Well, its clear that in the Byzantine army the cavalry were the most prestigious and important arm, right? The Strategikon envisions pure cavalry armies, likely supported by a few thousand foot (but possibly a large force), and that is completely different from an ancient Greco-Roman army. Especially after the Arab conquests, the Byzantines didn't even besiege many strong towns where infantry were more important in practice. I can't comment on the ERE's army before Justinian!

Vortigern, who do they figure wrote the chapter on infantry in the Strategikon, and about when? All I know is G.T. Dennise's commentary.

[Robert Vermaat]

The Strategikon envisions pure cavalry armies, likely supported by a few thousand foot (but possibly a large force), and that is completely different from an ancient Greco-Roman army.

Eh? hock: It doesn't? Don't take the manual (it's no more than that, mind you, a 'practical guide for those meaning to devote themselves to generalship') for cavalry warfare for a description of cavalry-only armies...

Especially after the Arab conquests, the Byzantines didn't even besiege many strong towns where infantry were more important in practice. I can't comment on the ERE's army before Justinian!

Didn't they? But then, this kind of warfare was also not high on the list of a commander in the Dominate.. What's the ERE's army exactly?

Vortigern, who do they figure wrote the chapter on infantry in the Strategikon, and about when? All I know is G.T. Dennise's commentary.

They figure it was written by the same guy who wrote the cavalry section - Maurikios - in the late 6th c.

[Sean Manning]

Eastern Roman Empire (as in the half of the Roman empire east of the Adriatic)- sorry. I tend to use "Byzantine Empire" or "medieval Greek empire" for the empire after Justinian, to avoid confusion with the other "Roman" empire in medieval Europe.

Robert, I'm confused. The Strategikon gives clear and detailed instructions for commanding a cavalry army without much infantry fighting various other armies, and my impression of the Byzantine army was that it was based on cavalry until 1204 or so. Is scholarly opinion changing here? I thought that the medieval Greek empire fought mostly defensive wars, and when it tried to expand it was rarely succesful. Edit: Foughtl mostly defensive wars after the Arab invasions, that is! The campaigns under Justinian and the Persian War were hardly defensive.

[Urselius]

I thought that the medieval Greek empire fought mostly defensive wars, and when it tried to expand it was rarely succesful. Edit: Foughtl mostly defensive wars after the Arab invasions, that is! The campaigns under Justinian and the Persian War were hardly defensive.

The Byzantine Empire conquered: northern Syria, Armenia and the central and northern areas of the Balkans in the period 950-1025. Following the First Crusade until 1180 the Empire was again on the offensive. Manuel I (1143-1180) conducted campaigns from Italy to Syria and Hungary to Egypt. In the 1160s two Byzantine armies made a vast pincer movement, one moving through Wallachia and then crossing the Transylvanian Alps, the other moving through Moldavia and the Russian principality of Galicia to cross the Carpathians, they entered the Hungarian province of Tranylvania and ravaged it.

I cannot think of any contemporary Western European state fighting on such a large geographical scale - excluding the Crusades which were largely multi-national.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Sean,

Robert, I'm confused. The Strategikon gives clear and detailed instructions for commanding a cavalry army without much infantry fighting various other armies.

No, the Strategikon gives instructions about how to fight with a cavalry force. It says nothing about cavalry-only armies. This manual does not describe a campaign, it describes the theory of how to wield a force.

People, the question was about ranks etc. of the Late Roman army. For any discussions about Romano-Byzantine warfare, please set up a new thread.

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Hi all

I've been digging around and come up with an interesting source online:

Treadgold, Warren. Byzantium and its Army, 284 - 1081. Stanford University Press, 1998. 87-88,96.

I'm now using it with Robert's list above to try to visualise (a muster formation of) a Diocletian legion of about 300AD. I've quoted/paraphrased a couple of sections from Treadgold below that seemed most relevant to me:

DIOCLETIAN’S REGIMENTS

… Diocletian … kept most of (the old Roman legionary) command structure as it had been. … Legions, cohorts, and alae continued to have officers called tribunes, centurions, and decurions as late as the sixth century. … Diocletian’s new legions of 1,000 men would therefore have had two cohorts, each actually of 480 infantry plus officers … . Note 1

(Treadgold then discusses ranks listed in Maurice’s Strategikon).Notes 2 & 3.

The official establishment of an infantry regiment of the old type therefore seems to have consisted of the following 501 men, not necessarily in quite this order of rank:

1 tribune
1 vicarius
1 primicerius
1 adjutor
6 centurions (commanding 80 men each)
1 campidoctor
1 actuarius
1 optio
1 surgeon
2 heralds
2 draconarii
1 cape bearer
1 trumpeter
1 drummer
60 decurions (commanding 8 men each including themselves)
420 common soldiers

NOTES:
1. See Watson, Roman Soldier, 22 (for cohorts) and 24-25 (for alae). On many points of military organizaton up to the seventh century, Grosse, Römische Militärgeschichte, though partly outdated, still supplies useful references to the sources.
2. Jones, Later Roman Empire, 626 (for actuarii and optiones). 634 (for centurions and decurions) and 674-75 (for the other officers).
3. Maurice, Strategicon, I.3, 1.5, III.1, and XII.7.

ewghwetq
[/list]

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

D'OHHH!!!

Everyone - I apologize. I just hit the submit instead of preview button. Ignore my last post. I'll finish it and try to do it properly.

(Mumble!!!) :oops:

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Hi all - this is my second go.

(Ahem! Starting again!)

I've been digging around and come up with an interesting source online:

Treadgold, Warren. Byzantium and its Army, 284 - 1081. Stanford University Press, 1998. 87-88,96. ([urlbeb08ip]http://books.google.com.au/books?id=xfV0LkMNaLUC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=vicarius+tribune+late+roman+army&source=web&ots=mAwoReZ2xp&sig=oHqEYIXhgO34zvzdbB66MH6O3Fg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA102,M1[/url])

I'm now using it with Robert's list above to try to visualise (a muster formation of) a Diocletian legion of about 300AD. I've quoted/paraphrased a couple of sections from Treadgold below that seemed most relevant to me:

DIOCLETIAN’S REGIMENTS

… Diocletian … kept most of (the old Roman legionary) command structure as it had been. … Legions, cohorts, and alae continued to have officers called tribunes, centurions, and decurions as late as the sixth century. … Diocletian’s new legions of 1,000 men would therefore have had two cohorts, each actually of 480 infantry plus officers … . Note 1

(Treadgold then discusses ranks listed in Maurice’s Strategikon).Notes 2 & 3.

The official establishment of an infantry regiment of the old type therefore seems to have consisted of the following 501 men, not necessarily in quite this order of rank[color=black]]

[color=darkred]1 tribune
1 vicarius
1 primicerius
1 adjutor
6 centurions (commanding 80 men each)
1 campidoctor
1 actuarius
1 optio
1 surgeon
2 heralds
2 draconarii
1 cape bearer
1 trumpeter
1 drummer
60 decurions (commanding 8 men each including themselves)
420 common soldiers

NOTES:
[size=75beb08ip]1. See Watson, Roman Soldier, 22 (for cohorts) and 24-25 (for alae). On many points of military organizaton up to the seventh century, Grosse, Römische Militärgeschichte, though partly outdated, still supplies useful references to the sources.
2. Jones, Later Roman Empire, 626 (for actuarii and optiones). 634 (for centurions and decurions) and 674-75 (for the other officers).
3. Maurice, Strategicon, I.3, 1.5, III.1, and XII.7.[/size]



The names in dark red are certainly ranks from the Principate. Those in bold green are newbies. The bold reds I have some confusion about.

Taking the bold greens first. Anyone have more info? Illustrations??

Taking the bold reds next. (Trumpeter, Decurion, Common Soldiers).

(1) I've found an illustration of a 4th Century tubicen as re-created by a Comitatus member. ([urlbeb08ip]http://www.comitatus.net/trooptypes.htm[/url]) Does anyone know know if there were still cornicens in 4th Century legions? Any details? Illustrations?


(2) Decurions. I'd always thought this was a cavalry rank and that a decanus (Like the Imperial one illustrated on RomenEmpireNet - [urlbeb08ip]http://www.roman-empire.net/army/decanus.html[/url]) was the leader of a contubernium.


(3) I note that 480 Common Soldiers has become 420 men in the table. Have I missed something?

Any and all comments, pointers etc most welcome.

Thanks!!

Howard/SPC

[D B Campbell]

I just hit the submit instead of preview button. Ignore my last post. I'll finish it and try to do it properly.

In future, just click the Edit button to make corrections, Howard!

The official establishment of an infantry regiment of the old type ...

Are you talking about a legion or an auxiliary unit, Howard?

Re. your list of officers, it would be interesting to know what evidence exists.
In my experience, a vicarius was simply the deputy of a (civilian) official (e.g. the Praefectus Praetorio, the Praefectus Urbi and the governor of a diocese all had a vicarius). As such, they had no command of troops. So what's the evidence for officers called vicarii in late military units?
Similarly, the primicerius was simply the head of a civilian bureau, although someone (Malalas?) mentions a primicerius in a cavalry schola, I think. Do we know of infantry primicerii?
An adiutor was simply an assistant, again not particularly military, and the actuarius was some kind of clerk (i.e. a function, rather than a rank).
I was under the impression that campidoctores were specifically associated with the Rome cohorts.

It may be that these names take on a new meaning in the Late army. Robert ..?