Post Diocletian Legion

[Lothia]

Ave Civitas,

It is I. I am still immersed in writing my book and I need some questions answered before I can continue editing my story.

If someone can help me by answering some of the questions in C and D below, or can direct me to some source that will allow me to research these questions I will be grateful.

I have encountered another snag concerning unit strength.
A. Before the Diocletian reforms the legion:
1. Was commanded by a legate
2. The second in command was the Tribunus Laticlavius
3. Had five Tribuni Angusticlavii who held (and I cannot name them because I do not know them) various administrative or command positions.
4. Had an optimum strength of 6,000 men
5. Was divided into ten cohorts, each (I assume) of equal strength and each commanded by a centurion.
B. Before the Diocletian reforms the cohorts:
1. Were commanded by a centurion
2. Was subdivided into six centuries
3. The Century’s strength was 80 men in all centuries except those assigned to the First Cohort.
4. The Century’s strength was 160 men in those centuries assigned to the First Cohort
C. After the Diocletian reforms, and here my story sits, in AD 335, the legion:
1. Was still commanded by a legate.
2. Was the second in command still the Tribunus Laticlavius?
3. How many Tribuni Angusticlavii were assigned to the Post-Diocletian Legion?
4. Had an optimum strength of 1,000 men
5. Were the 1,000 man legions subdivided into Cohorts?
6. How many cohorts were in a legion.
D. Before the Diocletian reforms the cohorts:
1. Were commanded by a centurion
2. Were they still subdivided into six centuries
3. Was the Century’s strength still 80 men in all centuries except those assigned to the First Cohort.

Thanks again, you guys are great.

Me.

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Hi Lothia/Tom

I started another thread a while ago, Legionary Officers and NCOs - Late Roman Army (284 - 565 AD), (link from old RAT) but it momentarily seems to have run out of steam. Not surprising given how hard it is to get info on the time and I guess we're all back out sifting.

Some great contributions though, especially Damianus and Valerius. Hope these help. I'll be reading this thread with interest as it's right up my alley at the moment.

Best of Luck!

Howard/SPC

[D B Campbell]

I am still immersed in writing my book ...

A novel, Tom? What's the plot?

C. After the Diocletian reforms, ..., the legion:
1. Was still commanded by a legate.

No -- senators were now forbidden to hold military commands. Each legion was commanded by an equestrian praefectus.

2. Was the second in command still the Tribunus Laticlavius?

No -- for the same reason as no. 1.

3. How many Tribuni Angusticlavii were assigned to the Post-Diocletian Legion?

I'm not aware of any evidence that sheds light on this. Maybe someone knows of something?

4. Had an optimum strength of 1,000 men
5. Were the 1,000 man legions subdivided into Cohorts?
6. How many cohorts were in a legion.

We discussed late legion size before here. It's my opinion that Diocletian raised full-strength legions, in order to have the ability to detach vexillations in the normal manner. But Constantine raised so many new legions that they cannot have been 5000-strong. At the same time, there was perhaps a gradual running-down and/or fragmenting of the old full-strength legions: the Notitia shows some legions scattered across several locations. The cohort still existed as the primary sub-unit, but it may well have shrunk in size, too.

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

We discussed late legion size before here. It's my opinion...

Duncan, can I throw in a thank-you for the link. Much as I try to search efficiently I never do.

I have some nagging questions of my own you might like to have a shot at but whether here or in another thread (so's not to sidetrack this one) I'll leave up to you and Tom.

(1) Could a "thousand-man legion" (Constantinian) be a descendant of the Flavian first cohort - organised not into cohorts itself, but still into double-strength centuries?

(2) I've seen somewhere there were two draconarii to a "Thousand-man-legion"; is this more suggestive of a legion divided into two cohorts?

(3) Given the Third Century's plagues and degrading of production technology* (*I'm assuming the switch to spangenhelm construction is an indicator of that) would there still have been cornicens/bucinators in Constantine's armies? (i.e., it's technically easier, I'm told, to produce a straight tuba than bend a bucina. Can't say I know, never tried.)

Cheers

Howard/SPC

[Lothia]

Ave Civitas,

I am still immersed in writing my book ...

A novel, Tom? What's the plot?

The story line follows two brothers. One enlists as a Curcitor in Euphratensis, the other gets a position as Tribunus Vacans in Tingitania.

Me.

[D B Campbell]

The story line follows two brothers. One enlists as a Circitor in Euphratensis, the other gets a position as Tribunus Vacans in Tingitania.

Interesting. For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that tribunus vacans was an actual position. I don't think it was a "technical term" like, for example, tribunus cohortis. Ammianus uses the phrase (e.g. 15.3.10) to indicate a man who held the rank of tribune but hadn't yet been assigned to a unit; the man was still a tribune like any other. But that's just my opinion.

[Robert Vermaat]

C. After the Diocletian reforms, ..., the legion:
1. Was still commanded by a legate.

No -- senators were now forbidden to hold military commands. Each legion was commanded by an equestrian praefectus.

A legion would be commanded by a tribune (rank), or a praefectus (rank) or a praepositus (post).

2. Was the second in command still the Tribunus Laticlavius?

No -- for the same reason as no. 1.

The tribune was the senior rank.

3. How many Tribuni Angusticlavii were assigned to the Post-Diocletian Legion?

I'm not aware of any evidence that sheds light on this. Maybe someone knows of something?

Nope. Alas, no info on the actual number. Such evidence would shed a lot of light on the organisation of the Late legion. By the sixth century a papyrus describes an old-style cohort commanded by a tribunus, eight senior officers including the adiutor (regimental clerk), the primicerius, six ordinarii and six others, probably the centuriones.

I've made my post into an article: http://www.fectio.org.uk/articles/ranks.htm

4. Had an optimum strength of 1,000 men
5. Were the 1,000 man legions subdivided into Cohorts?
6. How many cohorts were in a legion.

We discussed late legion size before here.

I can do one better, I've combined several of my posts on the forum into one article on my website here: http://www.fectio.org.uk/articles/numbers.htm

Orther forum threads:
the 100 man legion
Late Roman Army (fifth century)

It's my opinion that Diocletian raised full-strength legions, in order to have the ability to detach vexillations in the normal manner. But Constantine raised so many new legions that they cannot have been 5000-strong. At the same time, there was perhaps a gradual running-down and/or fragmenting of the old full-strength legions: the Notitia shows some legions scattered across several locations. The cohort still existed as the primary sub-unit, but it may well have shrunk in size, too.

In general, i think I agree with that, although I could not say for certain that there may not have been exceptions.
As for the old-style legions, some no doubt remain large, while others, like you say, are found to be split into two or five parts along a frontier.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Howard,

I'll bud in if you don't mind. :wink:

(1) Could a "thousand-man legion" (Constantinian) be a descendant of the Flavian first cohort - organised not into cohorts itself, but still into double-strength centuries?

From the evidence that we have 9and that's not much) this does not seem to be the case. Rather, the 1000-man legion seems to have been the logical effect of the strategigic breakdown of larger legions into smaller units. Sometimes we find two, but in more documented cases (such as Legio V Macedonia) we find 5 'new' units. Of course we don't have the actual number of each of these units, but it ties in with other information that we have, to suppose that a 'new-style' legion could number between 1000 and 2500 men.

(2) I've seen somewhere there were two draconarii to a "Thousand-man-legion"; is this more suggestive of a legion divided into two cohorts?

I'd like to hear where you found that!
But yes, it's commonly supposed that cohorts could be 500 strong. Mind you, new-style cohorts could be smaller than old-style cohorts, which continued to exist next to the new style units throughout the 4th to 6th century.

(3) Given the Third Century's plagues and degrading of production technology* (*I'm assuming the switch to spangenhelm construction is an indicator of that) would there still have been cornicens/bucinators in Constantine's armies? (i.e., it's technically easier, I'm told, to produce a straight tuba than bend a bucina. Can't say I know, never tried.)

Hmm, the Spangenhelm is not a sign of degrading production technology at all. It's both a sign of changing Roman military fashion, and a switch from private arms production to centralised state-controlled arms production.
I have small doubt that Constantine still had cornicens in his armies. Producing a tuba may be easier, but as I said here already, that's not a reason to suppose that technically more difficult to produce instruments were phased out.

[D B Campbell]

C. After the Diocletian reforms, ..., the legion:
1. Was still commanded by a legate.

No -- senators were now forbidden to hold military commands. Each legion was commanded by an equestrian praefectus.

A legion would be commanded by a tribune (rank), or a praefectus (rank) or a praepositus (post).

As a general rule, I confine myself to the period up to AD 400, so I cannot comment on the later situation.

But the Notitia Dignitatum shows that, as a general rule, legions (and cavalry units) were still commanded by praefecti, whereas lower-status (smaller) infantry units were commanded by tribuni. Example: in Britain, each legion is listed with a praefectus, whereas each of the old auxiliary cohorts along Hadrian's Wall is listed with a tribunus. Example: in Pannonia, the two legions are halfed, with each half commanded by a praefectus, whereas each frontier cohort is listed with a tribunus.

If memory serves (and you may be able to correct me here), the legions gathered in Amida had tribunes on their staff, but were commanded by more senior officers. (Too late to check references -- off to bed!)

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Hi Robert, Lothia, Duncan

(2) I've seen somewhere there were two draconarii to a "Thousand-man-legion"; is this more suggestive of a legion divided into two cohorts?

I'd like to hear where you found that!

Ha! Answer's simple - in my bad memory. The two draconarii were in a 500 man legion - not a thousand-man one (Treadgold, Warren. Byzantium and its Army, 284 - 1081. Stanford University Press, 1998. 87-88,96.) see: link from old RAT.

I found that book online ([url:1gf3djhi]http://books.google.com.au/books?id=xfV0LkMNaLUC&pg=PP1&dq=Treadgold,+Warren+Byzantium+and+its+Army#PPA87,M1[/url]).

Now!! Dang me, dang me! Take me down the road and hang me! As I google it to be sure, I find pages 61 to the back cover are "not part of this preview". Ah, Google, you've done it again!

Ah well, maybe someone owns a copy or google thinks it's just me who's done too much previewing.

Cheers

Howard/SPC

[Lothia]

Ave civitas,

You guys are just great. I really appreciate all the help you have provided. Thanks for all your assistance, I could not do this and have it come even close to an accurate picture of the times (AD 335) without your help.

Tom

[Urselius]

There are a couple of cornicens on the frieze depicting the forces of Maxentius being pushed into the Tiber on the Arch of Constantine, Rome.

The spangenhelm and ridge helmets might have had functional superiorities over the old single piece skull and neckguard types. A composite skull would be less likely to shatter than one made of a single piece of metal. Also the small individual parts would have been easier to work and toughen evenly than the larger single skull.

[Robert Vermaat]

A legion would be commanded by a tribune (rank), or a praefectus (rank) or a praepositus (post).

But the Notitia Dignitatum shows that, as a general rule, legions (and cavalry units) were still commanded by praefecti, whereas lower-status (smaller) infantry units were commanded by tribuni. Example: in Britain, each legion is listed with a praefectus, whereas each of the old auxiliary cohorts along Hadrian's Wall is listed with a tribunus. Example: in Pannonia, the two legions are halfed, with each half commanded by a praefectus, whereas each frontier cohort is listed with a tribunus.

Yes and no. the Notitia certainly shows that - praefecti in command of legions, tribunes in command of cohorts.

BUT - and here I must say with regret that you haven't read my comments/article closely enough , that situation only goes for the old-style, pre-Constantinian units. These units were not disbanded or replaced at a later date, but continued to exist in the Roman army, as the evidence of the Notitia Dignitatum (c. 394 AD) indeed shows. The command structure of these units was indeed the same or very close to the command structure of the 1st to 3rd centuries, and this continued to be so.

But new-style units, the auxilia palatinae, scholae, post-Diocletianic legions etc., had a different command structure, wich we have evidence of that the tribune, ranking directly below dux and comes, was the senior commanding officer. Have you noticed that these new-style units are hardly show the rank of the commanding officer, whilst the limitanei units (legiones, cohortes etc.) do? Odd.

If memory serves (and you may be able to correct me here), the legions gathered in Amida had tribunes on their staff, but were commanded by more senior officers. (Too late to check references -- off to bed!)

These were tribunes vacantes, not on the legions staff but on the staff of the magister militum Ursicinus.

[Lothia]

Ave Civitas,

So, then I can assume that the old-style legions still had the Primipilus but the new style legions had the Primicerius?

Thanks,

Me.

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Hi all

Tom - re the primicerius, did you note Duncan Campbell's post (Sat 11 Oct 2008, 8:04 - link from old RAT) in which he questions the nature of the primicerius? I have no knowledge in this area but this'd be a good starting point I'd say.

There are a couple of cornicens on the frieze depicting the forces of Maxentius being pushed into the Tiber on the Arch of Constantine, Rome.

Martin, you're right. They are there:



But are they truly representational or are they conventional representations of aeneatores? That is - I think their helmets are largely conventional representations, so why not their cornus (or are they bucinas)? (SEE NOTE) I'm encouraged that there is this pictorial evidence (it is from one of the Constantine-era panels) but I'd be more reassured if there were other evidence as well in support.

[size=75:1n2rfbd1]NOTE: (Many of both Maxentius' and Constantine's soldiers are wearing "that" helmet - the mysterious Praetorian Officer's / all officers' / Hollywood / attic helmet. This, I've come to believe, was the Roman artistic convention for depicting soldiers "formally", "properly", "respectfully" or some such. I do believe that this form of helmet existed, and I'll explore that elsewhere some time in the future. I just don't believe it was used by soldiers of Constantine's day in battle. If sculptors could take artistic licence with helmets, why not with horns?)[/size]

Compare the frieze helmets (lower left) in this montage with other examples of the type.



Apologies for this digression. One more and I'll finish.

The spangenhelm and ridge helmets might have had functional superiorities over the old single piece skull and neckguard types.

OK guys! (Waves white vexillum vigorously!) I concede. Spangenhelme weren't a good choice as evidence of a technological downslide.

OH - AND... If anyone wanted a look at the pages I referred to in Treadgold and can't get their hands on a copy / get google to oblige, drop me a message / email. I gather google's continuing reluctance may have something to do with the item's being available as a "u-pay-u-get" e-book ([url:1n2rfbd1]http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=acls;idno=heb02944.0001.001[/url]).

Cheers

Howard/SPC