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

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Ah! Yes! Definitely a better option. Thanks, Duncan.


Howard/SPC

[D B Campbell]

Ah! Yes! Definitely a better option.

Just used the Edit button myself! See above.

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Just used the Edit button myself! See above.

(You canny Scot! :lol: )

In the present thread, I'd like to focus strictly on the old style legions, both in the limitaneii and in the comitatus.

My present goal is to complete a sequence of teaching materials focusing on "the legion" in Roman military history. After that, I go back and start the same process with the non-legionary components of the Roman army. (Which means I'll happily note side-comments about auxiliary units, but I really don't want to get sidetracked).

The list of officers (well, the whole establishment) is Treadgold's, but it could easily become mine without critical comment by others such as yourself. And I have to be frank about my own limitations - I lack both the breadth and depth of knowledge in this area myself to apply an adequately critical eye to sources. Well...for the moment.

In presenting materials on the legion to my students (15 year-olds) I've tried to make a lot of it visual (visual is powerful). A classic example of such an aid to visualising would be this painting by Peter Connolly in The Roman Army (1975) of an imperial legion.

On the flipside, images seem very authoritative to kids nowadays. Hence, I have to convince myself of three things before presenting materials:

(1) Does the image (and the accompanying text) represent a credible real-life context? (Something like Connolly's painting of an imperial legion as it might have appeared on a parade ground - with everyone magically present and identified - does);
(2) Does the image have the value of both a list and a diagram insofar as it accounts for every member of the establishment who might be present in such a context? (The Connolly painting has this).
(3) Can every member illustrated be attested or, if not, are there compelling arguments to make suggesting their place in the establishment for the present reasonable? (The Connolly painting seems to reflect these conditions).

So, Duncan, your questioning of the Treadgold list now turns into my questions and decision-points. For example, without evidence suggesting that a military vicarius existed, I would not be representing him in teaching materials. Ditto the primicerii.

If "adiutor" and "actuarius" represent roles rather than a ranks, it would be interesting to know what ranks were given these roles in which grade of legion.

If campidoctores turn out to be officers of non-legionary units, I can scratch them.

I'll keep scrabbling around meanwhile but I'm really grateful for any and all feedback - even if it does mean "keep looking".

Before signing off, I'd just like to ask:

Draconarii. I'd gathered there were two, one for each cohort. But that these were secondary "signa". That is, there was a vexillum representing the legion. Is that correct? I'm assuming Eagles and old-style signa disappeared about the same period other distinguishing marks of the erstwhile legions did.

Cheers

Howard/SPC

[Urselius]

In the late army the old legions of 6,000, it seems, were broken up into detachments, but each detachment retained the name of the parent legion. For example the Legio Quinta Macedonica was, simultaneously, in four different stations in Dacia Ripensis and also at Memphis in Egypt. What isn't obvious is whether the detachments, when within the same province, retained any overall command structure or whether they merely came under the control of the local Dux. Surely some level of interaction remained between the disjecta membra of the old legions.

[D B Campbell]

What isn't obvious is whether the detachments, when within the same province, retained any overall command structure or whether they merely came under the control of the local Dux.

Both, I should think. Just as the old legions had their independent command structure, but also came under the overall authority of the provincial governor.

Surely some level of interaction remained between the disjecta membra of the old legions.

Not necessarily. They effectively became separate units.

[Paulus Claudius Damianus]

Hello everybody:

I propose this late roman hierarchic structure:

http://magister.olympe-network.com/foru ... ?f=15&t=67

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Thanks Damien

I gather this page is relevant too:

[url:1uy3ote6]http://magister.olympe-network.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=67&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&sid=93e0ba438019faf0cc11901668e001c0[/url]

I've not studied french but am an old language teacher and with my wife's help should work a lot of it out.

Cheers

Howard/SPC

[D B Campbell]

I propose this late roman hierarchic structure: http://magister.olympe-network.com/foru ... p=128#p128

I know these functions occur in Vegetius (e.g. campidoctores appear at 3.6, 3.8; circitores appear at 3.8; decani appear at 2.8; ...), but is there any evidence to support your proposed hierarchy in the legions?

(I know there is some slight evidence for a late cavalryman's career, but we're talking about legions here.)

[Paulus Claudius Damianus]

Yes, I don't think that my hiérarchic structure is strickly exact. I say in my text when i'm not sure of the pyramidal organisation (ex: the complex biarchus question...) This "Essay" is based to analytic sources which not my interpretation only, but a compilation to scientific authors and my own hypothesis.

If i don't cite all my sources that cause i make a book with an archéologue friend of mine.

But ex: The Aurelius Gaius Inscription support very fine the Ordinarii description to the first cohors by Vegetius.

Another Exemple: modern Historian Philip Richardot article "Hiérarchie militaire et organisation légionnaire chez Végéce" prove that the first hiérarchic ranks are contemporary to late IVth century.

Ammianus Marcellinus, the connection to primi-ordines and principes in Vegetius...

A lot of papyrii documentary support my probable hiérarchic organisation.

The centurion primicerius on the "dorothy vision"

the general commanders is well know for sure.

ect...

The actual rank organisation proposed (based on St Jérome in large part...) is too poor face the complexe late military structure.

But yes, my rank structure proposition is certainly false in part.

[Robert Vermaat]

People, we are mistaking grades and titles with actual ranks here. That means my own list above is also wrong, I'm working on a small article to remdy this. Also, the evidence that we have is confusing.

First of all though, it seems that the rank system of the old style units remained very much like it was under the Principate. There is evidence of this remaining that way until the 7th c. at least.
Not exactly the same, but not as changed as the ranks were of the newly created units since Constantine.

More to follow.

[Robert Vermaat]

As promised

HIERARCHY IN THE LATE ROMAN ARMY, 300-550 AD
An article about late Roman army commands, under the understanding that the Roman army was not a clear-cut affair. First of all, we have to distinguish between ranks, titles and grades. This can be confusing, because sometimes titles evolved into ranks, and some ranks are without an earlier equivalent.
Posted on the Fectio website.

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Thank you Valerius/Robert D D

Since my interest is primarily the legion in the late period, could I have your comments on the following as perhaps possibilities for the senior officers of legionary headquarters (Above the old centurionate)?

I have attached two tables, both looking at the Headquarters Staff Officers. There are three rungs which I am assuming are the equivalent of the five in the Early-/Mid-Imperial Legion (i.e.: (1) Legatus, (2) Tribunus Laticlavius, (3) Praefectus Castrorum, (4) The 5 Tribuni Angusticlavii, (5) Primus pilus).

The first table tries to summarise the Border Legion while the second looks at the Mobile Army Legion. I have noted your comment about the Campidoctor but have left him in third place in both tables for the moment.


NOTE to TABLE 1: A bit late to fix now, but row 1, first two columns should read "RANK In LATE Legion = Praefectus Legionis" and "EQUIVALENT RANK In Early- / Mid-Imperial Legion = Praefectus Castrorum"



Many thanks again!!

Howard/Spurius

[Robert Vermaat]

I'll give it a go, but please remember these things:

a) Our knowledge of the later Roman army hierarchy is limited.
b) The army was not as standardised as a modern army, and therefore it's impossible to say that 'this rank equalled that command'. Exceptions abound.
c) Old-style units continued to exist next to new-style units. that meant that a lot of the old ranks continued to exist, up to as late as the 7th century. However, we can't tell in any detail how much such names changed meaning, etc. See a)

[Mithras]

Robert, many thanks for sharing this essay, it is the most detailed version of the knowledge we have, that I've read so far and I can certainly use the advice in my current work.

Is it a part of an academic work that you are writing?

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Thanks Robert

Sadly, you're right. Primary sources in this period aren't obliging. But a detailed digest (like yours) of available evidence, as Paul implies, is an incredibly valuable contribution to secondary sources.

It would seem to be a matter of continuing to patiently familiarise ourselves with what evidence there is so that we can "get a feel for" the military and civil service cultures that held sway in different eras and in different parts of the later empire/s. That's going to be the best help in the sifting process.

Cheers

Howard/SPC