Late Roman Army Grade/Rank List under Anastasius

[Longovicium]

I tried some hypothesizing using the various grades and ranks

Ah, well done! You've clearly gone further into this than I have... It does become maddening, but oddly complusive.

Indeed - I even started an excel sheet and then promptly deleted it out of frustration. You start to make patterns up after a time and some wine!

This allows a theoretical double-strength century to be brigaded together. For the sake of this paper, I will call this double-century a maniple while acknowledging this is possibly an archaic term.

I started thinking along much the same lines with regard to the standard bearers (see below)...

Whilst his grade is that of a Flaviales, his rank is that of a Biarchus.

Not sure - biarchus, like centenarius and ducenarius, seems to be a rank used by guard units and cavalry (scholae and auxilia palatina), not legions. We no more need to start installing biarchi here than we need to start looking for Vegetius's decani!

Yes, you are right about the biarchus. I sort of forget this rank is specific (as far as we know) to the scholae and palatina. I used it some time ago as a caput stand-in and for some reason find it hard to unlearn it. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

1 x Centurion of Augustales grade  - 1 per Century

Interesting idea - the Augustale is certainly a high ranking soldier, drawing 6 annonae to the ordinarius's 8. But could we call him a 'centurion'? (which does slightly accord with Vegetius... although I did wonder whether these men might have been the old 'campidoctors'). Clearly the prestige of the 'centurion' had fallen drastically by this point, but having a larger number of lower-grade Alii might suggest the Augustales weren't so clearly demarked from the rest of the troops.

It is confusing to me. If the annonae per man is 1 as stated on the inscription then the lowest grade Augustales receives 4, half that of the Ordinarius. Or in other words, 4 x that of the munifices below him.

The lower-graded Flaviales have 2 steps in their career progression: the first or 'alii' grade receives 3 annona and the grade up 4. There are 200 in total of these lower 'Flaviales' grades in the Roman legion. 

The lower grades of the Veredarii, Vexillarii, Imaginiferi, Librarii, and so on, all receive only 2 annonae each, double that of the ungraded legionary.

To my mind, that places the Augustales and the Flaviales higher up the rank of grades than any of those below and perhaps hints at a move into the old centurional college, as it were.

But then again, perhaps I am looking for patterns after the fact!

A double-century or maniple contains 1 Signiferi and 1 Imaginiferi and 1 Optiones each.

Yep. The numbers of standard bearers would work with double centuries - one century (say) has a vexillarius and the other a signifer, with the linked pair having an imaginifer and an optio between them.

Trouble is, this would imply a hierarchy between the two centuries in the pair - priores and posteriores, as you put it. But all of our Ordinarii are on the same pay grade, and there doesn't seem to be any hierarchy between them. If we assume that the posterior century was commanded by a senior Augustale, we double the number of centuries.... Hmm.

I wonder then if the vexillarius (of the priores century) stands next to the Ordinarius by default of the tactical positioning? If these 2 centuries operate at a tactical level (as a maniple or numeri or whatever) then how would a command-level view be able to distinguish between them on the battlefield except by a unique standard? These stand is tactical positions and not as a hierarchy to do with pay or grade status perhaps? They are paid the same and thus stand as equivalents, I think. Thus the Ordinarius of the 'front' century and his colleague, the Ordinarius of the 'rear' century, are also equals. The difference is tactical.

This last figure needs the Clerici and Deputati to be subtracted 

Possibly. It did occur to me that, rather than subtracting the 'supernumeraries' from the century rolls, so to speak, we could make up the numbers with 'clerici and deputati' to arrive at a figure that could be divided by 20. Just adding 10 clerici to our overall figure would do this for a smaller legion, for example.

If we assume 459 munifices and 50 clerici and deputati, meanwhile, we arrive at a figure of exactly 1600 men in the ranks - of a total legion size of 1622 - giving 80 men to each century with every man below ordinarius grade carried on the rolls of the century.

Do your suggested figures still work with a smaller-sized century, or does it have to be 80 to fit all the different grades in?

Not sure - I will have to open up a bottle of wine and I am not anything other than madness lies down that path . . . 

You do realise that this is all feeding into my long-standing, and I might add printed, belief that the Late Roman legion size was 2000 men strong... ;-)

But what sort of legion are we talking about?

Prof Onur is a lot more cautious now, I believe, about identifying this as a palatine legion; it could indeed be limitanei...

[Nathan Ross]

that places the Augustales and the Flaviales higher up the rank of grades than any of those below and perhaps hints at a move into the old centurional college, as it were.

Yes, could be - although I'd still say there are too many of them for them to be holding any sort of command role, and splitting off the top tier alone as sort of 'deputy ordinarii' seems vague.

It is striking how much further up the pay scale they are than men like the imaginifer and optio, who were pretty highly placed in the centuries of the old legion. Frustrating how little we know about it all...

the Ordinarius of the 'front' century and his colleague, the Ordinarius of the 'rear' century, are also equals. The difference is tactical.

Maybe - it's a shame we don't know more about the comparative pay differences (if there were any) between centurions of the earlier legion. If they were all paid the same - except the primi ordines - then perhaps we could see the same thing here.

Meanwhile, I was thinking about those 'clerici ve deputati'. I'd been assuming the terms just means 'clerks or deputies', and referred to general low-grade admin staff (perhaps even slaves, as they don't seem to draw pay). I wondered if they might be part of the 'supernumeraries' or 'accensi' mentioned by Vegetius, carried 'on the strength' so to speak.

However, it occured to me that they might be clergymen. I do believe there's a reference to a 'deacon' attached to a military unit some time in the 5th-6th century (can't remember the source though!*). Could 'clerici' be priests as this date?

If we could work out who these men might be, it would help to determine how many of them there might have been (2 priests? 50 clerks?) and whether they would have been listed on the century rolls.

EDIT * - it's in AD Lee's War in Late Antiquity pp191-192: epitaph to a 'deacon of the numerus defensorum' from Thracia, 5th-6th century; there's also evidence from Egyptian papyri of presbuteroi in military units, and a note in the letters of Pope Pelagius about three priests being appointed to a unit in Italy.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

So, at the minimum number of munifices (159, I would guess) we have a total full-strength legion of 1272 men, of whom 1240 are soldiers in the ranks, with each of the 20 ordinarii commanding 62 men (I'm trying not to call these command 'centuries', but it seems needlessly picky!)

This is more or less consistent with the reverse-engineered legion size from textual sources.

Then there's the problem of only having 10 optiones and 10 of each sort of standard bearer - how does that divide between 20 'centuries'?

The logical explanation is that it is like the Strategikon - i.e. the system was already transforming into Bandons with Standard Bearers for each Bandon, and presumably an Optio for each Bandon.

Also the problem that the rather random numbers of veredarii, bracchiati and torquati do not divide equally between our 20 ordinarii... (I tried taking the veredarii out - thinking they might be some sort of 'cavalry component' - but the resulting figure didn't divide by 20! Tried the same with the various musicians too, but that didn't seem to work either...)

No I think you have it right, just we're looking at actual strength, not paper strength. So just like how the variouus pay grades divide up into 62 men per century on average, this unit might be theoretically larger at 1600 man but is actually operating understrength.

I think Francis there has basically figured it out, analyzing his numbers. Except I'd call them Bandons, not Manipules.

Regarding what kind of Legion it was, Limitanei vs. Palatine vs. Comitatenses is defined by role (and pay/tax privledges) , not quality. Limitanei garrisoned, Comitatenses and Palatine legions campaigned.

[Nathan Ross]

it is like the Strategikon - i.e. the system was already transforming into Bandons

Hey, good thinking! I hadn't considered the Strategikon, mainly as I've never read it and know little about it, but it's at least as relevant to the period as Vegetius (more so, perhaps) - could you explain the 'bandon' system briefly?

we're looking at actual strength, not paper strength.

I would say this text more or less defines 'paper strength' (or carved-in-stone strength)! It's showing what the legion is supposed to look like with everyone present, isn't it? There wouldn't be much point in inscribing a temporary situation or depleted numbers on an imperial monument, surely?

[Marcel Frederik Schwarze]

During the 5th and 6th centuries a numerus wasn't subdived by banda. I have described that issue in my work (Römische Militärgeschichte, Rekonstruktionsversuch) at p. 183 footnote 2 and ff. p. 184.
On superficial examination, the Strategicon only proves that bandum and numerus, must be evaluated (more or less) synonymous. However, a closer examination shows a differentiation between both termini. Here the bandum with its comites - there the numerus with its tribuni. Here the cavalry - there the infantry. And indeed, I'm able to prove it epigraphically and literary.
We see an official subdivision of a numerus in different banda not before the tractatus of Nikephoros II. Phokas and Nikephoros Ouranos - epigraphically however a bit earlier.

But I don't want deny the possibility that the Strategicon could be used to find new explanations.
The key to reappraise the unit and its internal structure is the answer to the question of the origin our unit. Quite neutral you should ask yourself the question which group in the history of roman military possessed cavalry on such a high quota - grouped together with infantry. Οὐερεδάριοι were neither an elite unit, nor were they messengers.
I have devoted an entire chapter to this question in my forthcoming new work - which also offers a new and modern translation of book 12B - with the illustration of the Greek text.

[Nathan Ross]

which group in the history of roman military possessed cavalry on such a high quota - grouped together with infantry.

Hmm, a cohors equitata would be the obvious answer - is that what you're suggesting?

Οὐερεδάριοι were neither an elite unit, nor were they messengers.

Do you think the Veredarii were certainly cavalry? I wondered this, but their number (275) does not divide equally among the Ordinarii (on the pattern of the old equites legionis), so who led them? They could be five subunits of 55 men each, maybe, but they would need some sort of decurion-like commanders, and they aren't available here.

Could you give us some idea of your thoughts?

[Marcel Frederik Schwarze]

which military standard was applied or used by the cavalry at the time of the Strategicon (and of course more early, however always focusing the end of the 5th until the early 7th century)?
What was the rank or title called for the officer of a cavalry unit at the end of the 5th and 6th century?

[Nathan Ross]

which military standard was applied or used by the cavalry at the time of the Strategicon... What was the rank or title of the officer for a cavalry unit at the end of the 5th and 6th century?

I'm hoping somebody can answer these questions, as I must say I have no idea!

[Marcel Frederik Schwarze]

How strong was a cavalry-λοχος (contubernium, file) in the Strategicon? Was it really 8 or 16 strong as with infantry - led by the δεκανους and (!) λοχαγους - or did we have to calculate with another number?
To get a better picture it is important to evaluate the possibility of promotions of complete military units ... let's ask the question if it's possible that a legio has been promoted to an auxilium. If this is possible, what about a degradation of a military unit?

The Cod. Iust. clearly shows that basically and technically all old troop designations (e.g. cohors, legio, ala etc.) were still existing in the 6th century - however, the generic term for all units was the αριθμος or numerus in latin. The other slabs of perge are naming the unit almost exclusively an αριθμος. That in the same source members of this regiment are also called στρατιωτικὰς λεγεονας is an interesting detail which shows the biography and career of this unit up to the 6th century. Whether the unit was originally founded as such, is uncertain.

[Nathan Ross]

The other slabs of perge are naming the unit almost exclusively an αριθμος.

Arithmos - interesting! Is there anything on the slabs that actually identifies this unit as a legion?

That in the same source members of this regiment are also called στρατιωτικὰς λεγεονας is an interesting detail

What would that be in Latin?

[ValentinianVictrix]

Is Prof. Rance still involved with the translation or not do we know?

[Marcel Frederik Schwarze]

@Nathan
the unit is called several times in slab B a legion and her members are "military legionaries". So, that the unit is a legion is without doubt correct.
e.g. [slabB 11-12] τῶν αὐτῶν λεγεόνων τοῖς αὐτοῖς καθοσιωμένοις στρατιώτες

That it was named - beside that - as αριθμος is no surprise since all units were called like that, an evolvement which is shown the first time in the text-part of the Notitia Dignitatum.
[slabC 3] calls the commander τριβοῦνος τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ - the tribune of the numerus. That means in the main-list C there is no word anymore about a legion.
The interesting part here is that we have a unit which still considered it as important that the term "legion" is used as well in slab A and B - at least in parts.

The technically correct term is the numerus, the epithetos is "legion". The traditionalisation of legions in the Roman Empire was enormous.
Therefore I consider the retention of certain legionary customs as probable - and this for the entire 6th century. This includes deployments, recruitment methods, respecting a certain homogeneity, hierarchy and internal order, combat tactics etc.

[Nathan Ross]

the unit is called several times in slab B a legion and her members are "military legionaries".

Thanks!

The technically correct term is the numerus, the epithetos is "legion".

I would say all that this confirms is that 'numerus' was used to designate military a unit of any size and status, as it had been in the 2nd-3rd century. An auxilia palatina unit was a numerus (as shown on many tombstone inscriptions); so too, as we see here, was a legion. This doesn't tell us anything about the numbers involved.

I don't see any implication in this that a former legion had been 'upgraded' to an auxilium - the evidence of the Concordia and other inscriptions suggests that the auxilia had a different rank structure (ducenarius-centenarius-biarchus-etc) that we do not see here.

Meanwhile, I'm still curious about the Veredarii (cavalry, or not?) and the mysterious 'clerici ve deputati'!

[Marcel Frederik Schwarze]

We have many implication that units were transferred via the "gate" of the institution "pseudo-comitatenses". There are strong indications for a number of units which formerly belonged to the frontier army as a classical auxilia. Then they were transferred to the pseudo-comitatenses and in some few cases they were even auxilia palatinae later on.

All units of pseudo comitatenses were most likely - at least officially - organized as legion.
Cod. Theod. VII 1, 18 [...]
[IDEM] AA. STILICHONI MAG(ISTRO) MIL(ITUM). Contra publicam utilitatem nolumus a numeris ad alios numeros milites nos(t)ros transferri. Sciant igitur comites vel duces, quibus regendae militiae cura commissa est, non solum de comitatensibus ac palatinis numeris ad alios numeros militem transferri non licere, sed ne de ipsis quidem pseudocomitatensibus legionibus seu de ripariensibus castricianis ceterisque cuiquam eorum transferendi militem copiam adtributam, quia honoris augmentum non ambitione, sed labore ad unumquemque convenit devenire. Quod si qui contra fecerint, per singulos milites singulas auri libras a se noverint exigendas. DAT. XIIII KAL. APRIL. MED(IOLANO) STILICHONE ET AURELIANO CONSS. [...]

We know however, that a good proportion of pseudo comitatenses in the ND looking a bit auxilarian. And that such a transfer (see above) will trigger a certain internal reorganisation is likely - although not proven.

However, one thing should be clear here. With the slabs of Perge we have no template, which is applicable to all or many other units.
The case here is very individual. And the regiment appears to have a very different biography and career. This can be seen also on the basis of many given military honors (augustalis & flaviales), the permanent high rate of cavalry with its own standards, standards of infantry, the officers etc.
Therefore one must consider here the concept of promotion and degradation of whole regiments.
All this unit proves is the plurality of the Roman army at this time. A grievance which Mauricius (Strat.12B) attempts to deal with by harmonizing those troops at least on battle field.

Interesting that a huge group of soldiers are named augustalis and flaviales. Current doctrine is, that those titles of honour were given individually to non-commissioned officers. That such a big group has gained that title permanently is at least noteworthy and most likely part of the unit's history. The title itself is indeed many times evidenced in the 6th and 7th centuries.
just taking 2 examples:
p.muench 1 13 for a legion in 594AD: αὐγουστάλ̣ι(ος) ἀριθμοῦ Συήνης
BGU 2 369 for pseudo-comitatenses in 530AD: φλαουϊαλίῳ ἀριθμοῦ [τῶν καθοσιωμ(ένων) Τραν]στιγριτανῶν

a word concerning the numerus:
There are very technical sources in the 6th century, esp. on the military Papyrology of egypt which still show some differences between some troop-types (e.g. ιλε, λεγεον and some others). But we see that this designations in the course of the 6th century completely blurred - until they were almost unrecognizable at the beginning of the 7th century. At the end of this periode the romans started to designate units by numbers only (the 2nd bandum; the 15th bandum of illyriciani ect), as confirmed later by Nikephoros II. Phokas and Nikephoros Ouranos. They were simply counted up.
e.g. chla.29.877 […] Constantinus v(ir) d(evotus), mil(es) bandi secundi. […]; also Anast. Pers. 3, 15, 1-8 for the 15th bandon;

Even units which had a - let's say a proper name before - were simply renamed after the place where they were garissoned now. The 6th century is bit complicated concerning this issue.
When a new unit was deployed at the time of the notitia dignitatum it was technically still a legio, auxilia or something else. When a unit was deployed at the beginning of the reign of Justinian - it was officially a numerus (+name of the city or of the ruling emperor; numerus Iustinianus + many others). In a broader sense, this has already been made earlier (e.g. Constantiniani, Theodosiaci etc).
Anyway, we have strong indication that all numeri followed "nearly" the same concept of tactical strenght and numer of officers - independently if the unit was deployed in egypt or in syria. A kind of "new-legion" was now the regular roman regiment. There was no other designation anymore.
Therefore we cannot compare the time of 400 with that of 500 regarding this topic. What we can say is that a certain evolvement has been begun in the late 4th and early 5th century by calling units generically "numerus" - leading in the result that just old(!) troops kept a kind of epithetos at least up to the early 7th century.

Under other circumstances - just by finding slab c - we could also believe that this unit is a kind of a new numerus. However, slab b shows clearly that this unit is a legion.

[Nathan Ross]

We have many implication that units were transferred via the "gate" of the institution "pseudo-comitatenses"... Cod. Theod. VII 1, 18

I'm not sure - the law you quote refers specifically to individual soldiers (singulos milites) being transferred, not entire units; the implication is that corrupt comites and duces were using this promotion as a reward or favour (?). This isn't to say it didn't happen - the existence of the 'pseudo-comitatenses' at least suggests it did, somehow. But there's no evidence for it here, I think.

a good proportion of pseudo comitatenses in the ND looking a bit auxilarian.

True. Although they could have come from the 'old style auxiliary' cohortes still based on the frontiers, rather than being 'remodelled' as new-style auxilia, perhaps?

the permanent high rate of cavalry with its own standards

Ah! So you're suggesting that the vexillarii were cavalry standard bearers? That would make sense, although it still leaves us short of cavalry commanders. But there are only 10 of them, and the number of veredarii (if they are indeed cavalry) does not divide equally between them...

Even units which had a - let's say a proper name before - were simply renamed after the place where they were garissoned now.

Perhaps a process that began in the 4th century? We have in the ND the palatine legions of the Divitenses (from Divitia) and Tungrecani (from Tungris/Civitas Tungrorum?), among several others with 'place name' titles. Plus all the 'milites' of various locations under the command of the frontier duces.

With the slabs of Perge we have no template, which is applicable to all or many other units... Therefore we cannot compare the time of 400 with that of 500 regarding this topic.

That's a shame, if so!

It does seem possible to arrange the numbers given on Slab C into something approximating a regular legion organisation, based on 20 'centuries'. We could even trace this back, perhaps, to the reorganisation of the 'new legion' of the tetrarchic or Constantinian era. But I concede that this might be wishful thinking!