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

[Robert Vermaat]

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?

Thanks Paul!

No, I don't seem to have the time for large undertakings. This is just for the forum and eventually the website! :wink:

[richard robinson]

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.


Enjoying this thread.
I read somewhere (sorry no source available :oops: ) that later period roman/byzantine standards were in a text described as "eagles"
I took this to mean that at least some standards looked similar to the ancient standards
or perhaps it was a pretty kenning????????.
regards
Richard

[Longovicium]

You might find this post for a Late Roman RTW mod interesting. regarding standards and their evolution. The poster has done some interesting research which shows the development through this period (as far as we can surmise) in some detail!

[url:18i863b6]http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=373385[/url]

[richard robinson]

Thank you so much
that was a wonderful piece of research
regards
richard

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

You might find this post for a Late Roman RTW mod interesting. regarding standards and their evolution. ...

My thanks too Francis.

I wonder, is it drawing too long a bow to make this comparison? From the 17th to 19th Centuries, major European army units carried banners into battles dominated by he firearm. The culture of warring there and then seems to have comfortably accepted a certain theatricality. From about the Boer War onwards and with the advent of the machine-gun, flag-bearers charging into the teeth of battle seems to have diminished markedly.

Before and during the Princpate, the Roman warring culture, with its large-formation mindset, may also have been comfortable with guts-and-glory theatricality. Hence, the presence of eagles on the battlefield. After the Third Century's ravages, however, a far more pragmatic and business-like mindset that is Illyrian and not Roman dominates the "Roman" side of the battlefield. As in the modern era, regimental standards (I could imagine they deliberately kept the traditional form of eagles) would have been respected as symbols, but in few stretches of the imagination would they have willingly been committed to the actual ground of conflict.

These are just thoughts, not confident or proof-based assertions.

Cheers

Howard / SPC

[M. Demetrius]

with the advent of the machine-gun, flag-bearers charging into the teeth of battle seems to have diminished markedly.

Well, yeah! Who wants to do that? :lol:

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

...(with the advent of the machine-gun, flag-bearers charging into the teeth of battle seems to have diminished markedly)...Well, yeah! Who wants to do that? :lol:

Exactly! And although the only ancient source I've read in any depth is (Penguin's) Ammianus, I get the feeling that the Romans of the 4th Century at least weren't terribly keen to get within breath-complaint distance of the enemy until it couldn't be avoided. Due (perhaps??) to a greater emphasis on missiles (slings, arrows and barbuli-allsorts) by the late period.

I mean, if you didn't have to, then why lug around something that didn't really contribute tactically to the battle, but was precious and stood a good chance of getting lost or damaged due to a more mobile and missile-charged nature of modern warfare?

Which makes me wonder about the draconarius in battle. In battlefield communication, the dragon standard seems to be practical, but something I'd want to keep back from the sharp end of a fight. I imagine (re-enactors??) it would need two good hands to keep it aloft, leaving the bearer with little means of protecting himself. Or of attacking ("I'll whack you with my wind-sock!" ).

A little off track but still on signa, there's Constantine's "magic" banner which I remember being impressed by in the BBC "Ancient Rome" series. Big sail like thing with his portrait on it. Makes me go out a bit further and wonder, maybe imagos were still big in the late period - and perhaps more on the battlefield than in earlier times??

Cheers

Howard / SPC

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Richard,

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.

The Roman army was never so standard that we could say that. The draconarius is not mentioned in the list of Late Roman ranks and grades, so we can't really tell much about it. Yes, a Late Roman unit would have a draconarius for each cohort, but (as I've written here) we are not sure how this was organised. A unit could have a draconarius, but maybe that one outranked the vexillarius. Maybe when a cohort operated alone it had a draco, but maybe a 'secondary cohort' only had a vexillum? Besides that, the rank as such is not clearly defined either. By the fifth century, as may be deduced from inscriptions from Perge and Prusias/Üskübü, Turkey, as well as a poem by Prudentius, there was a rank called magister draconum. This officer was the superior of the draconarii in a unit, ranking immediately below the tribune. However, we don't know if he directed the draconarii in battle, or may just have been the head of the standard bearers' club or scholae. The magister draconum probably replaced the optio signiferorum, whose function unfortunately is equally vague. Other ranks are less clear: from Cagliari/Sardinia we know an optio draconarius, while the bearcus draconarius seems to have been an unusually high-ranking draconarius.
By the 6th century there was a scholae draconariorum, a non-military office staff of 10 clercs attached to a civilian praefectus praetorio. After the 6th century, the draconarius disappeared from the Byzantine army.
How this translated into the actual number of dracos for each unit is therefore equally vague.

To make matters worse, next to the 'new model army' that was developed from the time of Diocletian and Constantine onwards, the 'old style army' was noty converted or phased out. It's unclear in what manner the draco was added to or perhaps replaced to old-style vexilla in these units.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Howard,

Which makes me wonder about the draconarius in battle. In battlefield communication, the dragon standard seems to be practical, but something I'd want to keep back from the sharp end of a fight. I imagine (re-enactors??) it would need two good hands to keep it aloft, leaving the bearer with little means of protecting himself. Or of attacking ("I'll whack you with my wind-sock!" ).

Since the draconarius would have had little more than a buckler to protect him (holding the draco with both hands), plus his place having been in the front line next to the CO, it comes as no surprise that a promotion to draconarius would have been only for the most brave. Ammianius relates (20.4.18) how Julian was crowned with a torque 'like that worn by a draconarius', which was usually awarded for such acts.

Contrary to modern practise among re-enactors, who dress the draconarius in light garb, I think they wore quite heavy armour. Angus McBride also once painted a draconarius (below), but I doubt that he would have survived for very long..

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Hi Robert

...Angus McBride also once painted a draconarius (below), but I doubt that he would have survived for very long..

How much compensatory body defence would he have needed, then, if survival had been the issue and not quick-replacement?

Neck and throat: I've seen on the Comitatus site an assertion that a mail coif was used by late Romans. Could that have been worn under the Intercisa type helmet?
Trunk: Mail or lamellar armour (or late-surviving segmentata)?
Arms: A target shield for the left with the standard (as with Principate signiferi) and a (late-surviving) manica or long, mail sleeve for the sword arm?
Legs: (?)

McBride's painting envisages the draconarius as being protected by a neighbour from missiles. To me, placing the standard-bearer in the front line would have the potential to effectively "neuter" his two nearest colleagues there. Surely attackers would learn to exploit these weak points? I remember reading that, in the Principate, there were "positions" of signiferi-in-waiting. These guys would jump out and grab the standard once its previous bearer had passed his use-by moment. I would have thought that there was a more conservative mindset in the later armies, there not being so many willing people to go around (Albeit, I'm thinking of Vegetius on recruitment in that statement).

You say the draconarius disappeared from the Eastern Empire armies about the 6th century. Maybe a backwards look would help inferring what the draconarius' role and battlefield placement was. Were there significant changes in infantry unit organisation and deployment in that period? Do we have evidence of what kind of battlefield communication was favoured then? These questions are somewhat hyperbolic as I'll be reading your linked articles and references, Maurice and whatever else falls to hand. However, there's no harm in asking what someone may already know.

I imagine Fectio has done re-enactments including Draconarii. Has the group looked at the vulnerability of the draconarius to missile fire? (How you'd do that within today's safety requirements :roll: I don't know but ....). Late edit: I seem to be encroaching on this thread here: How decisive were missile weapons in battle?

Cheere

Howard / SPC

[Crispvs]

"From about the Boer War onwards and with the advent of the machine-gun, flag-bearers charging into the teeth of battle seems to have diminished markedly."

Actually it was not the advent of the machine gun which led to the end of colours being carried in battle. It was the decision of army chiefs, starting with the British Army, following the defeat at Maiwand in 1880, to finish the practice of colours being carried in battle due to concerns that men were needlessly sacrificing themselves to defend or capture colours when they should either have been retreating to better ground or concerning themselves with protecting their fellow soldiers. As far as I know the only western army which continued to carry colours into battle was the Russian army.

My great grandfather's elder brother was the last British officer to carry the Queen's Colour in battle, and he was first wounded and then killed doing so. I could write a LOT more on the matter but as this is OT I won't. However, I will say that the crosses I lay down every year for Remembrance Day are not for family members lost in 1914-18 but for those lost in 1880 and 1903.

http://glosters.tripod.com/afghinf.htm
http://glosters.tripod.com/somali.htm

Crispvs / Paul Geddes

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

...(1) Actually it was not the advent of the machine gun which led to the end of colours being carried in battle. It was the decision of army chiefs, starting with the British Army, following the defeat at Maiwand in 1880...(2) I could write a LOT more on the matter but as this is OT I won't....

Hi Crispvs,

Thanks indeed for that post. This is something of which I (well, evidently) was totally ignorant. That you have a personal connection to this historical turning-point makes it rather special to hear it from you. Since both Britain and Australia still have, or have had at some recent stage, troops serving in Afghanistan and in Somalia, it added poignancy to reading the links you provided.

Yes, this is OT and we mustn't stray, but I also have a curiosity about (if lack of knowledge of) military history of the later 19th earlier 20th century. If you contribute to another forum or website/s about this latter period please let me know by pm. I'd be most interested.

Thanks again

Howard / SPC

[Robert Vermaat]

Good of you to remind us Crispvs. Some parts of our history seems ages ago, but aren't.

How much compensatory body defence would he have needed, then, if survival had been the issue and not quick-replacement?

The draconaruis would not be at full front, but (like the CO's) behind the antesignani, 'those in front of the signa'. It's your guess and mine how deep these lines were, but it's a common mistake by re-enactors to place the signa behind the formation: no-one can see what the comaands are! The draconarius and his collegues are the focal points of the formation in the heat of battle, after all.

Neck and throat: I've seen on the Comitatus site an assertion that a mail coif was used by late Romans. Could that have been worn under the Intercisa type helmet?
Trunk: Mail or lamellar armour (or late-surviving segmentata)?
Arms: A target shield for the left with the standard (as with Principate signiferi) and a (late-surviving) manica or long, mail sleeve for the sword arm?
Legs: (?)

A full coif can be worn under a helmet, you just need a larger one. But just neck protection would do I think.
A long hamata or a squamata would be quite normal for the front ranks.
Small shield left, perhaps indeed a manica, no different for the other front-rankers (who had of course a large shield and a lance).
Ocrae for both legs I imagine, nothing odd there either.
I think the only difference for the draconaruis would be the armament (no lance) and defensive measures (only a small shield).

McBride's painting envisages the draconarius as being protected by a neighbour from missiles. To me, placing the standard-bearer in the front line would have the potential to effectively "neuter" his two nearest colleagues there. Surely attackers would learn to exploit these weak points? I remember reading that, in the Principate, there were "positions" of signiferi-in-waiting. These guys would jump out and grab the standard once its previous bearer had passed his use-by moment.

I think (see above) that his position would be behind the immediate front, but he would only 'fail' to protect the man on his left, himself being protected by the man on his right.
Sure, there would be men to take over I think, but who's to say how that was organized?

You say the draconarius disappeared from the Eastern Empire armies about the 6th century. Maybe a backwards look would help inferring what the draconarius' role and battlefield placement was. Were there significant changes in infantry unit organisation and deployment in that period? Do we have evidence of what kind of battlefield communication was favoured then?

The draconarius would have had a similar role to that of any signifer in the Roman army, before him and after him. After all the draco is a battle standard, like the vexillum, and the flag. Not much difference there. It's the focal point of the unit and as such I guess the role of the bearer would not change very much, even though the infantry unit around it could change in organisation and role. But I'd like to hear opinions of others about that.

I imagine Fectio has done re-enactments including Draconarii. Has the group looked at the vulnerability of the draconarius to missile fire? (How you'd do that within today's safety requirements :roll: I don't know but ....). [/b][/url]

No we haven't, that would need a group with a lot more members than we have.

[Robert Vermaat]

You might find this post for a Late Roman RTW mod interesting. regarding standards and their evolution. The poster has done some interesting research which shows the development through this period (as far as we can surmise) in some detail!

Yes, but note that he has failed to grasp the nature of the development in the late Roman army. Next to the 'new model army, the 'old style' units continued to exist, with them the organisation and as a rsult, the old style signa as well.

[ValentinianVictrix]

I have posted elsewhere my theory that the Draco standard's purpose was to denote the presence of the Emperor, even if he were not physically present with the army.

There are a number of references in Ammianus to the draco standards being purple in colour, which would appear to denote an imperial connection.

I've yet to find any reference to the draco being used for signalling purposes apart from in Vegetius, and even then the references appear to refer to the vexillium standard, which itself appears to have denoted the presence of the unit it belonged to. Although even then there is this reference in Ammianus that suggests that when auxilia (and possibly the Legiones) were operating as a pair (we often hear in Ammianus that various units were paired with each other) then they shared the same vexillium standard-

'Lastly Charietto himself, by boldly opposing his body and by reproachful words,
held back his retreating men, and by confidence caused by his long stand, tried
to wipe out shame and disgrace; but fell pierced by a fatal shaft. After his
death the standard of the Eruli and Batavians was taken, which the barbarians
with insulting cries and dancing with joy frequently raised on high and
displayed, until after hard struggles it was recovered.' AMM Bk27 1, 5/6

'Post cuius interitum Erulorum Batavorumque vexillum direptum, quod insultando
tripudiantes barbari crebro sublatum altius ostendebant, post certamina receptum
est magna.'