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

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Adrian,

I'm sure that the draco was also an imperial standard (Ammianus certainly describes personal dracos for Julian and Constantius), but we have no evidence to show that it was only that.
The name of this colour (purpure) seems to have been of a reddish colour that the 'imperial purple' that we have in mind.

Arrian's first descriptions of the draco in the Roman cavalry certainly makes no mention of these being imperial only.
The Scriptores Historiae Augustae (Gallieni ii 8.6) mentions drcos belonging to all the legios.
Vegetius (Epitoma rei militaris 2.7) refers to draconarii as the new name for all standardbearers, and indeed that each cohort (2.13) has a draco.
Zosimus (Historia Nova 3.19) describes the loss of a draco which angered Julian, but he does not describe it as Julian's standard.
Maurikios (Strategikon, 12.7) mentions draconarii as normal grades among many (drill masters, standard bearers or draconarii, trumpeters, armorers, weapon makers, bowmakers, arrow makers).

I see no problem with the paired legions of the Heruli and Batavi sharing a single vexillum - I assume that this might has been the standard of their (single) commander, who would no doubt have a personal one. But the Heruli and Batavi would also have had their own standards, these being dracos, vexilla or perhaps even both.

[ValentinianVictrix]

I do not think I explained myself too well.

What I was pitifully trying to say was that I believe that the draco standard was a physical representation of the presence of the Emperor, rather like the Eagle standards were the representation of the might of the Legiones. Also like the older legiones used to have imago's of the Emperors. There are quite a number of references to the draco's being a purple colour when not being used as the personal standard by the Emperor. The famous episode where Silvanius was declared as Augustus by his troops by placing the purple silk from the draco standards being just one of them.

With reference to the episode of the Heruli and Batavian's standard being captured, the context I believe shows that it was the standard when both units were brigaded together, not their commanders standard but the combined unit standard, hence the reason great effort was made to retrieve it.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Adrian,

Can you please give me the reference of that episode with Silvanus?

As to a single standard for brigaded units, such combinations were not enduring. Individual units could operate alone or in pairs, but these combinations could also be changed. So why would they have need of a standard just for that combination?

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Hi Robert

Wow! Now that's what I call a thorough reply and I really do thank you for this much detail . I'm going to trawl through that for a bit and give you a bit of a rest. (Well, for a while).

As ever, my thanks and awed admiration!

Cheers

Howard / SPC

[ValentinianVictrix]

Hi Adrian,

Can you please give me the reference of that episode with Silvanus?

As to a single standard for brigaded units, such combinations were not enduring. Individual units could operate alone or in pairs, but these combinations could also be changed. So why would they have need of a standard just for that combination?

Here is the part of the Silvanius episode your interested in-

'Meanwhile Silvanus, stationed at Cologne and learning from his friends' constant messages what Apodemius was undertaking to the ruin of his fortunes, knowing the pliant mind of the fickle emperor, and fearing lest he should be condemned to death absent and unheard, was put in a most difficult position and though of entrusting himself to the good faith of the savages. 16 But he was prevented by Laniogaisus, at that time a tribune, whom I have earlier stated to have been the sole witness of Constans' death, while he was serving as a subaltern.33 He assured Silvanus that the Franks, whose fellow countryman he was, would kill him or on receipt of a bribe betray him. So Silvanus, seeing no safety under present conditions, was driven to extreme measures, and having gradually spoken more boldly with the chief officers, he aroused them by the greatness of the reward he promised; then as a temporary expedient he tore the purple decorations from the standards of p145the cohorts and the companies, and so mounted to the imperial dignity. ' Amm Bk XV, 2, 15-17

'Agens inter haec apud Agrippinam Silvanus assiduisque suorum conpertis nuntiis, quae Apodemius in labem suarum ageret fortunarum et sciens animum tenerum versabilis principis, timens ne trucidaretur absens et indamnatus, in difficultate positus maxima barbaricae se fidei committere cogitabat. Sed Laniogaiso vetante, tunc tribuno, quem dum militaret candidatus solum adfuisse morituro Constanti supra rettulimus, docenteque Francos, unde oriebatur, interfecturos eum aut accepto praemio prodituros, nihil tutum ex praesentibus ratus in consilia cogebatur extrema et sensim cum principiorum verticibus secretius conlocutus isdemque magnitudine promissae mercedis accensis, cultu purpureo a draconum et vexillorum insignibus ad tempus abstracto ad culmen imperiale surrexit. '

This passage should also be of interest to you, whilst it does indeed describe draco's in conjuction with the Emperor, you get the sense that it is the standards of all the legiones and auxilia units that are being paraded, not just the Emperor's personal standard, much as modern military parades have the units displaying their colours etc in t he presence of their rulers-

'So soon, then, as much had been disbursed in regal preparation, and every sort of man had been rewarded according to his services, in the second prefecture of Orfitus he passed through Ocriculi, elated with his great honours and escorted by formidable troops; he was conducted, so as to speak, in battle array and everyone's eyes were riveted upon him with fixed gaze. And when he was nearing the city, as he beheld with calm countenance the dutiful attendance of the senate and the august likenesses of the patrician stock, he thought, not like Cineas, the famous envoy of Pyrrhus, that a throng of kings was assembled together, but that the sanctuary of the whole world was present before him. And when he turned from them to the populace, he was amazed to see in what crowds men of every type had flocked from all quarters to Rome. And as if he were planning to overawe the Euphrates with a show of arms, or the Rhine, while the standards preceded him on each side, he himself sat alone upon a golden car in the resplendent blaze of shimmering precious stones, whose mingled glitter seemed to form a sort of shifting light. And behind the manifold others that preceded him he was surrounded by dragons, woven out of purple thread and bound to the golden and jewelled tops of spears, with wide mouths open to the breeze and hence hissing as if roused by anger, and leaving their tails winding in the wind. And there marched on either side twin lines of infantrymen with shields and crests gleaming with glittering rays, clad in shining mail; and scattered among them were the full-armoured cavalry (whom they called clibanarii), all masked, furnished with protecting breastplates and girt with iron belts, so that you might have supposed them statues polished by the hand of Praxiteles, not men. Thin circles of iron plates, fitted to the curves of their bodies, completely covered their limbs; so that whichever way they had to move their members, their garment fitted, so skilfully were the joinings made.' Amm XVI, 10, 4-8

'Ut igitur multa quaeque consumpta sunt in apparatu regio, pro meritis cuilibet munera reddita, secunda Orfiti praefectura, transcurso Ocriculo, elatus honoribus magnis stipatusque agminibus formidandis tamquam acie ducebatur instructa, omnium oculis in eo contuitu pertinaci intentis. Cumque urbi propinquaret, senatus officia reverendasque patriciae stirpis effigies ore sereno contemplans non ut Cineas ille Pyrri legatus in unum coactam multitudinem regum sed asylum mundi totius adesse existimabat. Unde cum se vertisset ad plebem, stupebat, qua celeritate omne quod ubique est hominum genus confluxerit Romam. Et tamquam Euphratem armorum specie territurus aut Rhenum altrinsecus praeeuntibus signis insidebat aureo solus ipse carpento fulgenti claritudine lapidum variorum, quo micante lux quaedam misceri videbatur alterna. Eumque post antegressos multiplices alios purpureis subtegminibus texti circumdedere dracones hastarum aureis gemmatisque summitatibus inligati, hiatu vasto perflabiles et ideo velut ira perciti sibilantes caudarumque volumina relinquentes in ventum. Et incedebat hinc inde ordo geminus armatorum clipeatus atque cristatus corusco lumine radians, nitidis loricis indutus, sparsique cataphracti equites, quos clibanarios dictitant, [personati] thoracum muniti tegminibus et limbis ferreis cincti, ut Praxitelis manu polita crederes simulacra, non viros: quos lamminarum circuli tenues apti corporis flexibus ambiebant per omnia membra diducti ut, quocumque artus necessitas commovisset, vestitus congrueret iunctura cohaerenter aptata.'

On the other matter, I am as mystified as you are why a single vexillium standard should be used when paired units were brigaded together.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Adrian,

Here is the part of the Silvanius episode your interested in-

Thanks! Found it myself in the meantime. :wink:
Interesting:

he tore the purple decorations from the standards of p145the cohorts and the companies, and so mounted to the imperial dignity. ' Amm Bk XV, 2, 15-17

Looks like a lot of dracos and vexilla had purple enough to make a garment large enough for Silvanus. So, probably, this was the nortmal colour, and many cohorts had it.

This passage should also be of interest to you, whilst it does indeed describe draco's in conjuction with the Emperor, you get the sense that it is the standards of all the legiones and auxilia units that are being paraded, not just the Emperor's personal standard, much as modern military parades have the units displaying their colours etc in t he presence of their rulers-

Looks like it.

[Robert Vermaat]

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?

For the sake of being complete I must draw attention to a reference by Vegetius, who seems to see the draconarius (and indeed every signifer) as being unarmoured..

Vegetius, Epitoma rei militaris 1.20:
... Quid ipsi draconarii atque signiferi, qui sinistra manu hastas gubernant, in proelio facient, quorum et capita nuda constant et pectora? ...
... What are the dragonbearers and standardbearers, which hold spears in their left hand, to do in battle, whose heads and breasts are naked ? ...'

I don't believe they were. But then, Vegetius wrote that all Late Roman soldiers threw their armour away, which was evidently incorrect.

[M. Demetrius]

I don't believe they were. But then, Vegetius wrote that all Late Roman soldiers threw their armour away, which was evidently incorrect.

Not to mention expensive. :!:

[ValentinianVictrix]

Vegetius, Epitoma rei militaris 1.20:
... Quid ipsi draconarii atque signiferi, qui sinistra manu hastas gubernant, in proelio facient, quorum et capita nuda constant et pectora? ...
... What are the dragonbearers and standardbearers, which hold spears in their left hand, to do in battle, whose heads and breasts are naked ? ...'

This reference, plus others in Vegetius are generally taken to be part of his 'rail' against the what he perceived as the 'barbarisation' of the Late Roman army when he wrote. It's believed he wrote between 390AD and 420AD. Now, is there other evidence that at least some Late Roman infantry of this period were unarmoured?
Well, Perhaps.
The now destroyed Column of Arcadius, located in Constantinople, was erected by Arcadius to celebrate his 'victory' over the usurper Gnaius. The column was scetched by various artists in the 16th and 17th Centuries before it was pulled down. Several panels clearly show captured Gothic troops who were unarmoured. These Goths were technically 'Roman' in that they were part of Gnaius force, and he was a Roman military commander. Vegetius probably saw a number of Gothic recruites, relied on more and more by the Late Empire after the defeat at Adrianopolis, and its not clear if they would have been equiped in the Roman style or not. So, it may well be that the troops Vegetius saw and commented on were part of a Gothic garrison, and not representative of the Late Roman army as a whole.

[Sean Manning]

However, there is also evidence from most centuries that some Roman milites were unarmoured (eg. Caesar describes his men improvising armour against the stones and arrows of Pompey's men). Not to mention auxilliae like the German throwers on Trajan's column. So if Vegetius did see unarmored infantry, that was nothing new.

[Robert Vermaat]

So if Vegetius did see unarmored infantry, that was nothing new.

I agree. Plus, the lines where Vegetius describes the lack of armour are not from an observation, but he claims to describe a formar process in which the soldiers appealed to the emperor to get permission not to wear armour:

Vegetius (1.20.3): But negligence and sloth having by degrees introduced a total relaxation of discipline, the soldiers began to think their armor too heavy, as they seldom put it on. They first requested leave from the Emperor to lay aside the cuirass and afterwards the helmet. In consequence of this, our troops in their engagements with the Goths were often overwhelmed with their showers of arrows. Nor was the necessity of obliging the infantry to resume their cuirasses and helmets discovered, notwithstanding such repeated defeats, which brought on the destruction of so many great cities.

Especially the second part sound like fantasy to me.

[ValentinianVictrix]

So if Vegetius did see unarmored infantry, that was nothing new.

I agree. Plus, the lines where Vegetius describes the lack of armour are not from an observation, but he claims to describe a formar process in which the soldiers appealed to the emperor to get permission not to wear armour:

Vegetius (1.20.3): But negligence and sloth having by degrees introduced a total relaxation of discipline, the soldiers began to think their armor too heavy, as they seldom put it on. They first requested leave from the Emperor to lay aside the cuirass and afterwards the helmet. In consequence of this, our troops in their engagements with the Goths were often overwhelmed with their showers of arrows. Nor was the necessity of obliging the infantry to resume their cuirasses and helmets discovered, notwithstanding such repeated defeats, which brought on the destruction of so many great cities.

Especially the second part sound like fantasy to me.

I dont think we can entirely dismiss Vegetius out of hand. The Emperor that the appeal was made to was Gratian. He was Emperor of the West at the time of Valen's death and he himself may well have been murdered by his own troops after causing ill-feeling by surrounding himself with Alan's as his bodyguard. These may have acted both as mounted and foot warriors. Only their nobles were noted as wearing body armour. Plus, Gothic infantry in the main did not wear armour and when initially recruited into the Roman army at that time probably fought in their native styles until they were trained and equiped otherwise. It may well be the case that as more and more Goth's, Huns and Alan's began to be recruited there was less of a need to protect them as well as 'native' Romans, after all there appeared to be a never-ending supply of willing barbarian recruits, and who cared if they got stuck full of arrows?

[Robert Vermaat]

I dont think we can entirely dismiss Vegetius out of hand. The Emperor that the appeal was made to was Gratian. He was Emperor of the West at the time of Valen's death and he himself may well have been murdered by his own troops after causing ill-feeling by surrounding himself with Alan's as his bodyguard. These may have acted both as mounted and foot warriors. Only their nobles were noted as wearing body armour. Plus, Gothic infantry in the main did not wear armour and when initially recruited into the Roman army at that time probably fought in their native styles until they were trained and equiped otherwise. It may well be the case that as more and more Goth's, Huns and Alan's began to be recruited there was less of a need to protect them as well as 'native' Romans, after all there appeared to be a never-ending supply of willing barbarian recruits, and who cared if they got stuck full of arrows?

Hi Adrian,
Sorry but I can't follow there.
1) The Alans of the bodyguard would hardly have been dressed as if still on the steppe. The Roman army used foreign troops for centuries but as yet I've got to see any evidence that they were not armed and armoured in the Roman fashion. Plus an unarmoured bodyguard would have been of little use in battle. So even if only Alan nobles in Free Alania wore body armour, that need have no bearing at all on how Alans in the Roman army dressed uo for battle.
2) Maybe some did not care whether barbarian federates were bloodied in battle, but recruits for the Roman army did not go home after the battle, and to have such a view about your own recruits would not only be very short-sighted but also close to suicide for any commander who wanted to win a battle.
3) We know that the Roman army in fact continued to wear armour, which is the best evidence to dismiss this statement of Vegetius.
4) Vegetius had some political axe to grind, which speaks out of his writings. The armour-issue is by no means an isolated incident, and in fact his idealised 'ancient legion' (which to all intents and purposes may never have existed at one time in history) served mainly to rub the nose of his readers in the fact that practise in their day and age was different from the glorious past. And he may well have added a few things (that happened even in history) which his readers could not check, but about which every soldier would have laughed.

[ValentinianVictrix]

I dont think we can entirely dismiss Vegetius out of hand. The Emperor that the appeal was made to was Gratian. He was Emperor of the West at the time of Valen's death and he himself may well have been murdered by his own troops after causing ill-feeling by surrounding himself with Alan's as his bodyguard. These may have acted both as mounted and foot warriors. Only their nobles were noted as wearing body armour. Plus, Gothic infantry in the main did not wear armour and when initially recruited into the Roman army at that time probably fought in their native styles until they were trained and equiped otherwise. It may well be the case that as more and more Goth's, Huns and Alan's began to be recruited there was less of a need to protect them as well as 'native' Romans, after all there appeared to be a never-ending supply of willing barbarian recruits, and who cared if they got stuck full of arrows?

Hi Adrian,
Sorry but I can't follow there.
1) The Alans of the bodyguard would hardly have been dressed as if still on the steppe. The Roman army used foreign troops for centuries but as yet I've got to see any evidence that they were not armed and armoured in the Roman fashion. Plus an unarmoured bodyguard would have been of little use in battle. So even if only Alan nobles in Free Alania wore body armour, that need have no bearing at all on how Alans in the Roman army dressed uo for battle.
2) Maybe some did not care whether barbarian federates were bloodied in battle, but recruits for the Roman army did not go home after the battle, and to have such a view about your own recruits would not only be very short-sighted but also close to suicide for any commander who wanted to win a battle.
3) We know that the Roman army in fact continued to wear armour, which is the best evidence to dismiss this statement of Vegetius.
4) Vegetius had some political axe to grind, which speaks out of his writings. The armour-issue is by no means an isolated incident, and in fact his idealised 'ancient legion' (which to all intents and purposes may never have existed at one time in history) served mainly to rub the nose of his readers in the fact that practise in their day and age was different from the glorious past. And he may well have added a few things (that happened even in history) which his readers could not check, but about which every soldier would have laughed.

I'll respond to each point-

1)I'll grant you that it probably was the fact that the Alan's who acted as Gratian's bodyguard wore armour, although there is some artistic evidence to suggest body armour was not always worn by mounted troops.
2)Theodosius I did not seem to mind the huge number of Gothic foederatii who died under his or his generals command! There appeared at that time at least to be an almost inexhaustible number of willing recruits only too keen to die for the cause of Rome.
3)Not all Roman infantry wore armour, and it may just be the case that Vegetius experience of Roman infantry was of the unarmoured variety, which may have coloured his view point somewhat ('This lot are unarmoured, so I must presume everyone is')
4)Yes, Vegetius was harping back to what he perceived as a 'Golden Age', the the Legiones reigned triumphant and all were crushed underfoot. He probably made things look far worse than they looked to try and impress upon the Emperor he was dedicating the work to reverse the situation and train and equip the army like it was in the old days. Mind you, at what period the 'old days' his 'legio Antiquita' refers to is another topic all of its own!

[Robert Vermaat]

OK, once more then.. :roll:

1)I'll grant you that it probably was the fact that the Alan's who acted as Gratian's bodyguard wore armour, although there is some artistic evidence to suggest body armour was not always worn by mounted troops.

3)Not all Roman infantry wore armour, and it may just be the case that Vegetius experience of Roman infantry was of the unarmoured variety, which may have coloured his view point somewhat ('This lot are unarmoured, so I must presume everyone is')

Even if this would have been correct (which I doubt for the 4th centiry, maybe the 5th), it has no bearing on the problem. Your starting point seems to be that Vegetius saw some unarmoured soldiers and assumed they all were. But it's clear, as I wrote yesterday, that this cannot have been the case, since he makes a point about it: he tells us how the soldiers petitioned the mperor to do away with helmets and body armour. Either Vegetius id as you said and completely invented the rest (in which case he is a novelist and we should stop discussing him altogether), or he had no clue about the military whatsoever, but given the recent defeats he tried to explain what he thought to be the cause. Anyway, we know he was wrong both about the armour and the cause for the defeats.

2)Theodosius I did not seem to mind the huge number of Gothic foederatii who died under his or his generals command! There appeared at that time at least to be an almost inexhaustible number of willing recruits only too keen to die for the cause of Rome.

You completely missed my point.
yes, I wrote that very same thing about federates, but you were talking about recruits - that's the regular army! Not temps who are hired and fired. What stupidity would it be to think so about your recruits, that it hardly mattered if they died, 'so let's not give them armour'- any idea how hard it was for the Roman army to get recruits? Why do you think that they had to employ those federates? Yes, because they did not have enough recruits!

4)Yes, Vegetius was harping back to what he perceived as a 'Golden Age', the the Legiones reigned triumphant and all were crushed underfoot. He probably made things look far worse than they looked to try and impress upon the Emperor he was dedicating the work to reverse the situation and train and equip the army like it was in the old days. Mind you, at what period the 'old days' his 'legio Antiquita' refers to is another topic all of its own!

Indeed.