Late Roman Army

[melchoriusiii]

Hi!

I'm a Dutch student and I'm writing an essay about the development of the Roman Army. At the moment I'm writing about the Late Roman Army. But I have ran into some troubles and the internet can't seem to help me . So I have a few questions:

1)A roman "ordo", is that equal to a roman cohort?
2)Did the late Roman army (between ca 300 AD and 400 AD) use manipels in the army or cohorts? I know that the army of the principate used cohorts, and a cohorts consists 2 manipels. But since the size of the legions was reduced in the Dominate, did they still use cohorts? Or was it much more likely to use manipels and erase cohorts?
3)Was there a big change in command structure? I read about the 2 magisters leading infantery and cavalery, but how was this in the army?
4) The "foederati": in what way were they different from the normal auxilia?

Help is much appreciated :grin:

Thanks in advance

[Flavivs Aetivs]

"Ordo" means order, and contrary to Phil Barker's writings which were for a war game, the Ordo didn't exist, although it was an interesting theory for it's time.

these threads here:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=423960
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=353621

Go extensivley into the Organization of the Late Roman Army, where it is believed the Roman Maniple came back into use in the 4th century, and was later renamed the "Numerus," both of which were led by a Ducenarius. these threads are entirely his work, and I obviously take no credit for them.

The Cohort was still the dominant unit in the late army, but the organization got more complex because a wider variety of units and detatchments were made to counter various threats.

In the Army, the Magister Pedites and Magister Equitum really didn't exist; instead they were replaced by Multiple Magister Militae. Although they certainly existed in the development of this system at some point, likely years before the ND was published

In the west:
Comes et Magister Utriusque Militae Praesentalis (Senior) - this was the seniormost position and usually de facto ruler of the west, eg. Stilicho or Aetius
Comes et Magister Utriusque Militae Praesentalis (Junior)
Magister Militum per Gallias
Magister Militum per Hispanias
Magister Militum per Itallias
In the East:
2 Magister Militum Praesentalis
MAgister Militum per Oriens
Magister Militum per Thracias
Magister Militum per Illyrias

Then there were the Comes, or Counts, who led the Comitatenses. There were like tons of these, the only notable position i can think of was Comes Africae who had control of the Grain Supply to Rome.

Then there were the Duces, Dukes, who controlled the Limitanei Garrisons. Even more of these

Finally there were unit commanders, including Tribunis, Praepositus, and others depending on the Unit Grade.

Wikipedia, surprisingly, covers it pretty well, but I'm sure you dont want to use Wikipedia for your essay.

Finally, the Foederati and the Auxilia of before were very much different. The Auxilia were non-citizen provincial romans, under roman commanders. The Foederati were Barbarian Mercenaries, who were paid for their servince and operated under their own commanders, and often of their own accord. The best examp[le of the use of Foederati were Aetius and his huns.

Many foederati units had a habit of deserting if they didnt like the way the romans were managing things. Notable cases include Vitus' invasion of Spain in 440's.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Hi!

I'm a Dutch student and I'm writing an essay about the development of the Roman Army. At the moment I'm writing about the Late Roman Army. But I have ran into some troubles and the internet can't seem to help me . So I have a few questions:

1)A roman "ordo", is that equal to a roman cohort?
2)Did the late Roman army (between ca 300 AD and 400 AD) use manipels in the army or cohorts? I know that the army of the principate used cohorts, and a cohorts consists 2 manipels. But since the size of the legions was reduced in the Dominate, did they still use cohorts? Or was it much more likely to use manipels and erase cohorts?
3)Was there a big change in command structure? I read about the 2 magisters leading infantery and cavalery, but how was this in the army?
4) The "foederati": in what way were they different from the normal auxilia?

Help is much appreciated :grin:

Thanks in advance

1) Its not clear where the 'ordo' came from apart from the fact there was an officer called an 'Ordinarius'
2) Whilst lots of people state that maniples did not exist by the 4th century there are mentions of them in Ammianus, which may or may not be a case of classing. The fact he also mentions cohorts would appear to cast doubt on classing as we know cohorts were in existance at the time.
3) Evan has given you a link to a site which has some interesting information
4)Auxilia were originally recruited from 'barbarian' tribes but by the 4th century anyone could enroll in their ranks, barbarian or not. Foederati are best thought of as almost mercenary units who may over time actually become regular units.

[melchoriusiii]

Thank you both!It's much more clearer now

[D B Campbell]

1) Its not clear where the 'ordo' came from apart from the fact there was an officer called an 'Ordinarius'

Ordinarius is a term occasionally used for centurion (ordo = centuria). However, it is also found as a qualifier with medicus, in which case it probably indicates that the medicus "served in the ordines" (ranks).

2) Whilst lots of people state that maniples did not exist by the 4th century there are mentions of them in Ammianus, which may or may not be a case of classing. The fact he also mentions cohorts would appear to cast doubt on classing as we know cohorts were in existance at the time.

Do you mean classicizing (i.e. harking back to the classical age)? Ammianus certainly doesn't use the term "maniple" in any technical sense, but in a rather vague rhetorical way.

4)Auxilia were originally recruited from 'barbarian' tribes but by the 4th century anyone could enroll in their ranks, barbarian or not. Foederati are best thought of as almost mercenary units who may over time actually become regular units.

The auxilia were originally recruited amongst the peregrini (i.e. non-citizens) wherever they were found, and continued to be so recruited until the early third century, when difference between citizen legionaries and non-citizen auxiliaries ceased to have any meaning.

[Robert Vermaat]

1)A roman "ordo", is that equal to a roman cohort?

I think ‘ordo’ might be more of a generic word. The ordinarius (rank) seems to have been the same as the centurion of the old-style regiments, commanding eighty men according to a papyrus describing a sixth-century cohort. Odd enough, the ordinarius, although widely attested, does not appear in either Jerome's or Justinian’s list. In the old-style units, the centurio continued to exist as a rank.

2)Did the late Roman army (between ca 300 AD and 400 AD) use manipels in the army or cohorts? I know that the army of the principate used cohorts, and a cohorts consists 2 manipels. But since the size of the legions was reduced in the Dominate, did they still use cohorts? Or was it much more likely to use manipels and erase cohorts?

Cohorts. As already described, Ammianus does mention the word, but in an archaizing way perhaps. The manipular style of fighting had been largely abandoned, with the army mostly fighting in linear formations, which might be the main reason why maniples were no longer mentioned.

3)Was there a big change in command structure? I read about the 2 magisters leading infantery and cavalery, but how was this in the army?

As already described, there were quite a few changes. The creation on a ‘new’ army from Diocletian onwards, as well as the split of the empire in two parts created quite a change overall. However, some things did not change, and many ‘old-style’ units continued in existence as before. My article on new style ranks:
http://www.fectio.org.uk/articles/ranks.htm

4) The "foederati": in what way were they different from the normal auxilia?

As already described, by the time of the Late Roman army (300 and after), the classic auxilia had ceased to exist, and the name was used for elite regiments, usually close to the emperor. Most of these consisted of non-Roman soldiers.
Federates on the other hand were usually former enemy groups, settled within Roman territory and fighting for the Roman state by means of a treaty (foedus). The actual arrangements vary and we can’t put a clear-cut stamp on each group, as the actual legal terms seem to have varied quite a bit. Alarics Goths were not exactly settled, but considered to be foederati just as the Franks in Belgium. Foederati could also be temporary soldiers, hired just for a campaign, and disbanded afterwards.

[Nathan Ross]

The ordinarius (rank) seems to have been the same as the centurion of the old-style regiments... In the old-style units, the centurio continued to exist as a rank.

I suspect the 'centurio ordinarius' was, as you say, the basic old-style centurion, as distinct from the more senior centenarius. The two could exist in the same legion; could this imply that the centenarii were perhaps something like the old primi ordines?

Ducenarius, meanwhile, I can't find in a legion context at all - it seems to be most commonly found in connection with the protectors (protector ducenarius / ducenario protectori) and a few times with the numeri of auxilia (palatinae? - e.g. ducenarius de numero Batavorum seniorum). So might a ducenarius be the commander of 200 men in the schola protectorum or the numeri of auxilia?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I suspect the 'centurio ordinarius' was, as you say, the basic old-style centurion, as distinct from the more senior centenarius. The two could exist in the same legion; could this imply that the centenarii were perhaps something like the old primi ordines?

Ducenarius, meanwhile, I can't find in a legion context at all - it seems to be most commonly found in connection with the protectors (protector ducenarius / ducenario protectori) and a few times with the numeri of auxilia (palatinae? - e.g. ducenarius de numero Batavorum seniorum). So might a ducenarius be the commander of 200 men in the schola protectorum or the numeri of auxilia?

This is part of Pompeius Magnus' theory regarding the Ducenarius if I'm correct. I'd have to go back over it but it would be sensible. The division would be small enough for late roman legiones and palatina units to be divided up easily, and would allow for small but flexible detatchments.

[Robert Vermaat]

Ducenarius, meanwhile, I can't find in a legion context at all - it seems to be most commonly found in connection with the protectors (protector ducenarius / ducenario protectori) and a few times with the numeri of auxilia (palatinae? - e.g. ducenarius de numero Batavorum seniorum). So might a ducenarius be the commander of 200 men in the schola protectorum or the numeri of auxilia?

I do have a number of them in new-style units. It's from Hoffmann's listing of funeral inscriptions from Aquileia, so there are bound to have been more. I'll try to send a list of them when I'm back home. they are srving in quite normal regiments of the field army.

As to the number they commanded, all i can say is that we don't know. I'm still think that vegetius erred. A ducenarius received three-and-a-half annonae (plus one-and-a-half capitus if cavalry), which is NOT double the amount a centenarius received, two-and-a-half annonae (plus one capitus if cavalry). But it's possible.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I do have a number of them in new-style units. It's from Hoffmann's listing of funeral inscriptions from Aquileia, so there are bound to have been more. I'll try to send a list of them when I'm back home. they are srving in quite normal regiments of the field army.

As to the number they commanded, all i can say is that we don't know. I'm still think that vegetius erred. A ducenarius received three-and-a-half annonae (plus one-and-a-half capitus if cavalry), which is NOT double the amount a centenarius received, two-and-a-half annonae (plus one capitus if cavalry). But it's possible.

Really? Would be great to see the list. I wish they sold your fancy roman books over here in america. :lol:

[Robert Vermaat]

This is from the cemetary at Concordia:

Schola armaturarum seniorum/iuniorum:
Fl(avio) Cascinivo ducenario / ex numero armatura/rum [q]ui vixit annis / XLIII et militavit an(nis) XXIII / arcam de proprio suo / ubi positus est collegas / sui co<m=N>paraverunt si quis / eam aperire voluerit dabit / in fisco auri pondo sex

Equites Batavi seniores:
Fl(avius) Fasta duce(narius) de Batavis / equ(itibus) sen(ioribus) arca conparavit…

Equites Octavodalmatae
...]erco ducen., qu[i mil(iavit)?] / .]NNV equi. VIII Dalm[at..} etc.

Batavi seniores
Flavius Savinus duce/narius de numero Batav/orum seni. vixit annos p(lus) m(inus) cinquaginta etc.

Eruli seniores
Fl. Batemodus ducenari/us de n. Erulorum seni./arca conparavi etc.

Leones seniores
Fl Ursacius ducenar. de numero / Leonum sen., qui vixit ann. p.m. XL., / militavit ann. XX, arcam sibi / de proprio conparavit etc.

[Nathan Ross]

This is from the cemetary at Concordia

Thanks. They're still numeri (of auxilia, although not (yet) palatina, quite right), which would support the idea that the ducenarius was an officer of the new-style field army formations, and similarly of the protectores. The Concordia inscriptions also have centenarii among the numeri.

Schola armaturarum seniorum/iuniorum: Fl(avio) Cascinivo ducenario / ex numero armatura/rum...

Are the [i]numeri armaturarum certainly the same as the Schola armaturarum?


There's this one, though, which does seem to imply a ducenarius in the scholarii:

(CIL 06, 32949) Hic pax quiescit Eucari duc(enarius) scut(arius) / sc(h)ol(a) secund(a) qui m[ilit]avit an(nos) p(lus) m(inus) XVIIII biarc(h)us / vixit an(nos) p(lus) m(inus) XXXV [depos]itus diae pridiae Idus / Ius Z

[Robert Vermaat]

which would support the idea that the ducenarius was an officer of the new-style field army formations

I think that was never in doubt?

The Concordia inscriptions also have centenarii among the numeri.

And a senator, a biarchus draconarius, a semissalis, a magister primus, , an augustalis, a quaestor, a campidoctor (the 'new style', I think), domestici, protectors but no primicerius. Apparently the primiceri managed to eleude the cemetary!

The Concordia inscriptions can be found here
http://retro.seals.ch/cntmng?type=pdf&ri...subp=hires

Are the numeri armaturarum certainly the same as the Schola armaturarum?

I think so, yes.

There's this one, though, which does seem to imply a ducenarius in the scholarii:
(CIL 06, 32949) Hic pax quiescit Eucari duc(enarius) scut(arius) / sc(h)ol(a) secund(a) qui m[ilit]avit an(nos) p(lus) m(inus) XVIIII biarc(h)us / vixit an(nos) p(lus) m(inus) XXXV [depos]itus diae pridiae Idus / Ius Z

Well, no reason to suppose that that ducenarii did not serve in the Scholae?

[Nathan Ross]

I think that was never in doubt?

Oh, sure! Sorry, got a bit mixed up there - I just meant that the rank is apparently found only in certain of the new units and not in others - there are no ducenarii in the legions, as far as I know, either old-style frontier ones or the newer field army ones, despite the latter featuring centenarii.

[Robert Vermaat]

Not in the old ones - I think as the current theory goes, the old-style units continue with old-style ranks, such as centurios, decucios etc., while the new-style units have the new-style ranks such as centenarian, primicerians etc.

Yes, the Concordia cemetary shows that the ducenarius was present in the new-style legions as well (Batavi ans (H)eruli seniores.