Roman regiments of the VIth century.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Yeah AHM Jones established that, but I was interested in what the "Felix" referred to.

In the Notitia it's actually Placidi Valentiniaci Felices but I think the "c" is a typo (at least according to my Latin teacher the C is incorrect).

The medieval copiest may well have kept in any strange renderings of words if their noble employer who paid them for a copy wanted an exact copy, rather than an amended one.

Felice has been transformed over the centuries to Feliz in Spain, so at this time of year if you want to wish someone a Happy Christmas you would say 'Feliz navidad'. So I would think the most used form of Felice would be 'Happy'.

[Robert Vermaat]

Regarding the linking of the unit’s name with the (non-campaigning) boy emperor, I hark back to A.D. Lee’s discussion (2007:61-66) I mentioned in my first post. Galla Placidia, the boy’s regent at the time the unit would have been formed (it was a very late addition to the Notitia) is probably deliberately remembered in the unit’s name.

I think it's possible that this unit was formed out of Galla Placidia's Gothic bodyguard.

[Robert Vermaat]

In the Notitia it's actually Placidi Valentiniaci Felices but I think the "c" is a typo (at least according to my Latin teacher the C is incorrect).

I'd warn for 'scribal errors' for they often are the historian's best friend.
Also, Latin teachers may be correct on grammar, but still wrong about the original. I once had a lengthy discussion with someone who insisted that the latin of the Strategikon was 'incorrect' and therefore had to be 'improved'.. I just could not make him understand that it was 'military Latin' used by Greek-speaking Romans during the 6th century, and therefore a primary source. He kept insisting his school latin was a better choice. :|

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Hmm...

I would support that Galla Placidia's Gothic Bodyguard may have formed this unit, but I also would support that it was partly Roman, because it is listed as under Roman command rather than under Gothic command. It was probably a mix, like most Late Roman units, but Barbarians did very well under Roman command (under their own command they had a tendency to abandon the Army or are easily broken in battle. For some reason always in Spain as well...). Being Bucellarii they were probably very, very well equipped, and very well trained though.


As for the original spelling, how would that translate?

Placidi Valentiniaci Felices

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

I think it's possible that this unit was formed out of Galla Placidia's Gothic bodyguard....

That would be very possible I'd imagine. They are called bucellarii most places I've seen them referred to. Although I've also seen them referred to as Auxilia Palatina, which confuses me. Can someone un-confuse me here?

I'd warn for 'scribal errors' for they often are the historian's best friend. ... Also, Latin teachers may be correct on grammar, but still wrong about the original.

Good point. I remember hearing at least one of my lecturers sayng (and me reading in a research article!) "I can't believe (ancient writer "X") would have said something like that!" when discussing a passage they thought was incorrect in some way. The truth is most of our opinions of these ancient writers come from translations of mediaeval manuscripts - that is, from generations of copyists.Who knows if Cicero's or Sophocles' spelling or grammar was perfect? Certainly - even in his own time, the ancient author's influence over the quality of copies made of his works had to diminish rapidly after the initial version he dictated or wrote himself.

Speaking of spelling, I have to confess I got the spelling of Valentinian III's names from Professor Wikipedia. I've since seen the spelling of the lad's middle name as "Placidus" quite widely, and in such respected researchers as Bury and Nischer. So I guess I needn't have agonized whether a "long 'i'" was or wasn't a "double 'i'".

Cheers

Howard / Spurius

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Both. They're graded as Auxilia Palatina but served as Bucellarii.

Bucellarii was a role, not a unit type.

[Urselius]

In the 'Gothic Wars' there seems to be a distinction between Belisarius' bucellarii and this "guard." Presumably the guard was a smaller unit, in much the same way that in the English Civil Wars prominent commanders - such as Prince Rupert - had their own regiment of horse and a separate and smaller "lifeguard'. Rupert's cavalry was 10 troops strong, about 600 men, his lifeguard numbered around 150 men.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

It's likely they operated the same way as the Schola Palatina - there were 7,000 Scholae but the Emperor's Guard only numbered 40 Candidati.

[Spurius Papirius Cursor]

Both. ... Bucellarii was a role, not a unit type.

AND

In the 'Gothic Wars' there seems to be a distinction between Belisarius' bucellarii and this "guard." ...

Aha! Many thanks both.

Cheers

Howard / Spurius

[Robert Vermaat]

Both. They're graded as Auxilia Palatina but served as Bucellarii.
Bucellarii was a role, not a unit type.

Which means they can very well have originated as a unit of Gothic bodyguards to Galla Placidia, before entering the ranks as a regular unit. We are of course talking mid-5th century here, and distinctions between irregular units and regular units could be very vague even during the Principate. Plus if we recall the savage Atacotti, who may have entered into a regular Late Roman unit, the guard of Galla Placidia will have been much closer to a regular unit.

My guess is they became 'official' after the had to be paid for by the Roman treasury.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I never disputed they were not. I'd imagine they became "Romanized" under Aetius though, or replaced with Hun recruits.

[Robert Vermaat]

I never disputed they were not. I'd imagine they became "Romanized" under Aetius though, or replaced with Hun recruits.

I didn't mean to say you disagreed, I only sought to clarify.
Truly I doubt that there was much difference between the Gothic units of Athaulf and the Roman units of Constantius. The latter was forced to hire mercenaries, the former had seen service with the regelar army (no doubt equipped as well) on and off over the past 3 decades.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

True, but I'd Imagine that the standardized equipment of the Romans still prevailed in their army, while the Goths still had unstandardized equipment with only the rich able to afford armor and whatnot, unless they looted it off the Romans (and consdering they only won 1-2 victories against them between 410 and 454, I doubt it)/

[Robert Vermaat]

Roman structure did not exactly break down in the areas under control of Athaulf. More likely than not, nothing really changed and the Goths just took over the civilian as well as the military organisation. it's the same reason why the Frank first go for the large towns with the fabricae, and in my opinion the reason why the Roman (Italian) army never get any bigger, only smaller. The Franks and Goths are the new lords, but almost totally within the existing Roman structures.

I keep reading more and more about this - no Roman evacuation followed by a barbarian occupation, but a synthesis between a lingering Roman provincial population, augemnted by a new layer of immigrants. Britain, Austria, France, the Bulgaria and now even The Netherlands.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Yeah I understand how that worked, it's just that there were no Fabricae in Aquitania. You had to go North of Aurelianum to find them, and the Salian Franks tried to take control of the cities that had them (to no avail, thanks to Aëtius).