Final date of the Notitia

[Nathan Ross]

Flavivs AetivsHe was doing everything down to managing the supply of pigs to the city of Rome. I would certainly call that dominating...

No, that's micro-managing!

I'll stick with the unpopular old-fashioned date for the last Notitia revision as 395-98, roughly.

It must at least have been revised after that, as it features an infantry unit named after Valentinian III. I'd agree that the British stuff was almost certainly a complete anachronism by the 420s - but it was perhaps the last available documentation, so they continued to use it... I suspect most of the other army lists for the west were well out of date by then too.

However, there is another possibility... Giusto Traiana, in 428AD: An ordinary year at the end of the Roman empire (p.78) writes that in that year "the empire appears to have shown a renewed interest in Britannia, at least for strategic reasons. Following operations against the Franks, Aetius could then attend to the defence of the coast along the Channel and North Sea. Ravenna's reawakened concern for Britannia coincided with the interests of the Church... The strategy for Germanus's campaign in Britannia was probably put together by Aetius in line with papal directives..."

Whether this is the case or not, it's probably true that Rome never gave up its territorial claim to Britain, and might have been interested in reimposing direct control in the 420s-30s if the chance became available. A survey of the military establishment in the province using the last available records (which would date back to around AD400 at the latest) would have been very useful in preparing for such a reoccupation and assessing what would be required in terms of recruitment and supplies.

To Vegetius, Rome was the inviolate city that had resisted sieges...

Yes, this is almost certainly true, as Milner points out. But isn't it him that calls the city 'inviolable', not V himself? V alludes to the fall of Rome to the Gauls three times in his chapter on sieges. In one case he says that the defences on the Capitol allowed the Romans to endure the sack of their city and go on to establish a greater empire. Could this be a subtle insinuation that the Romans of V's own day could rise above their recent disasters (including, by implication, a similar sack of the city) and return to greatness?

(I'm surely reading too much into this, I know, and it is a digression - but if scholars from Gibbon to Goffart and Birley have been prepared to accept a post-410 dating (although I haven't read their arguments), I don't think Millner's case should be accepted as conclusive.)

[Renatus]

Yes, this is almost certainly true, as Milner points out. But isn't it him that calls the city 'inviolable', not V himself?

It is true that it is Milner, not Vegetius, who uses the word 'inviolate' but I was not quoting anyone, merely reflecting the sentiment.

(I'm surely reading too much into this, I know, and it is a digression - but if scholars from Gibbon to Goffart and Birley have been prepared to accept a post-410 dating (although I haven't read their arguments), I don't think Millner's case should be accepted as conclusive.)

I am not necessarily following Milner. I am not entirely convinced about Theodosius I either, which is why I kept my pre-410 options open. Nor am I following him when I reject post-410 emperors; that is my own instinct. I appreciate that I am ranging myself against some pretty big hitters but their arguments would have to be extremely convincing to persuade me. I am especially interested in what Birley might have to say. As I have said, this is something I want to look into. I started collecting material some time ago. Now all I have to do is to find the time to go through it all and to draw my final conclusions.

[Nathan Ross]

Now all I have to do is to find the time to go through it all

Yes, I know what you mean! I really know very little about the whole complicated era - it was reading Traina's book recently that awakened my curiosity. But I'd be interested to know your verdict, if you think further about it.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

However, there is another possibility... Giusto Traiana, in 428AD: An ordinary year at the end of the Roman empire (p.78) writes that in that year "the empire appears to have shown a renewed interest in Britannia, at least for strategic reasons. Following operations against the Franks, Aetius could then attend to the defence of the coast along the Channel and North Sea. Ravenna's reawakened concern for Britannia coincided with the interests of the Church... The strategy for Germanus's campaign in Britannia was probably put together by Aetius in line with papal directives..."

I've seen this as well, in fact as the reason the "Groans of the Britons" letter was sent since the Romans had reasserted their dominance on the middle Rhine and Belgian coast. Aetius clearly did have some involvement with the Roman officials in Britain, as the "Groans of the Britons" is addressed to him. He probably knew the Roman officials and the allied sub-Roman states were useful allies, especially after he came to some sort of concessions with Armorica after 448. We see Liticiani serving at the Battle of Chalons, which many authors now agree to have been a corruption of Litaui suggesting that Romano-British troops were assisting Roman forces in the 450's, a theme we also see in the 470's with Riothamus.

[Steven James]

Birley, E. (1988), "The Nature of the Notitia Dignitatum." In id., Roman Army: Papers 1929-1986. Amsterdam,” contends that "The origin of the Notitia ... is to be sought not in the official activities of a public department, but in the private enterprise of an amateur of military matters."

 
Is Birley’s view shared by many scholars?

[Nathan Ross]

"The origin of the Notitia ... is to be sought not in the official activities of a public department, but in the private enterprise of an amateur of military matters."

The quote appears to be from: Eric Birley, 'The Beaumont Inscription, the Notitia Dignitatum, and the Garrison of Hadrian's Wall', Transactions of the Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Society, XXXIX (1939), p,.210 - online here.

It's a nice idea: the ND was an amateur compilation of earlier official materials (the British data in particular being pre-367), and, like the work of Vegetius and de rebus bellicus, dates in its final much-revised form to the 430s. But I don't know if anyone else has supported the theory since, or quite how anyone would go about doing so!

[Robert Vermaat]

Purportedly, at least the last time I reviewed it, Britain was abandoned by Rome c. 410 or thereabouts.

No it wasn't. The rescript of Honorius addresses Bruttium in South Italy but is corrupted as "Brettia" or something like that.

Well it addresses 'the cities of Britain, but I agree with your point, only you're possibly mixing up Zosimus with what Procopius did later.

Zosimus wrote:
"Honorius wrote letters to the cities in Britain, bidding them to take precautions on their own behalf" (Historia Nova, Book VI.10.2). 
That suggested to many that he wrote about the british diocese, especially as chapter 6 seemed to be about events in Gaul and Britain:
(Historia Nova, Book VI.1: "Celtic affairs have not yet been given above the treatment they deserve it is right that I relate them now in detail").
However, chapter 6 seems to be 'damaged' and the least edited of the entire book, dealing with a number of events.
In fact the rescript is placed inbetween events in Italy. If we see this list of Italian provinces in the Notitia Dignitatum, the possibility comes to mind that 'the cities of Britain' may in fact have been 'the cities of Bruttium':
"Under the control -of the illustrious praetorian prefect of Italy are the dioceses mentioned below: Italy; Illyricum; Africa. Provinces: of Italy seventeen:Venetia; Aemilia; Liguria; Flaminia and Picentim, and Picenum; Tuscia and Umbria; Picenum suburbicarium; Campania; Sicily; Apulia and Calabria, Lucania and Brittii; the Cottian Alps; Raetia prima, Raetia secunda; Samnium; Valeria; Sardinia; Corsica." (Notitia Dignitatum Occidentis chapter 2, The Praetorian Prefect Of Italy).

---

The fact he doesn't mention the sack of Rome is what most historians say dates him to before that timeframe.

V is only interested in the distant and glorious past, not the 'debased' present - besides, he may not have wanted to remind the emperor of recent tragedies. Therefore the lack of a mention of the events of 408-410 should not rule out a later date for the composition.

According to Roger Pearse, Zosimus "refers to the hated tax, the Chryargyrum (2.38.4), abolished by Anastasius I in 498, in terms that suggest strongly that he lived after that date.  Evagrius Scholasticus (elsewhere in this collection) writing at the end of the 6th century attacks Zosimus, and tells us that Eustathius, who died around 518,  also wrote against him. This allows us to date Zosimus to the early 6th century."

Photius assumed Zosimus to have copied from Enapius:
"It may be said that Zosimus did not himself write the history, but that he copied that of Eunapius, from which it only differs in brevity and in being less abusive of Stilicho. In other respects his account is much the same, especially in the attacks upon the Christian emperors. I think that both these authors brought out new editions, although I have not seen the first edition, but it may be conjectured from the title of the "new edition," which I have read, that, like Eunapius, he published a second edition. He is clearer and more concise, as we have said, than Eunapius, and rarely employs figures of speech" (Bibliotheca, Codex 98).

---

one of the proposed final dates for the Notitia was 428 AD. Does anyone have a source for that...?

I wonder how many subsequent scholars have accepted this idea? It seems extremely unlikely!

Did anyone read this book?
Scharf, Ralf (2005): Der Dux Mogontiacensis und die Notitia Dignitatum, eine Studie zur spätantiken Grenzverteidigung, Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, Band 50, (Walter de Gruyter).

---

What about Germanus? The Romans were totally gone (not mostly gone) when he visited Britain. Constantius of Lyon gives the date of Germanus crossing over to Britain and his initial tangle with the spreading Saxons as 429. Perhaps Britains were still garbed like Romans, but the Roman army had long departed.

What about Prosper of Aquitaine? He places the adventus Saxoni  in the..."fifteenth year of Arcadius and Honorius: at this time, the strength of the Romans was utterly wasted by sickness; and the provinces of Britain were laid waste by the incursion of the Saxons." That's the year 410, and within a year after Constantine III took Britain's last forces with him to Gaul. The Saxons knew when to invade, "You wait until all the disciplined soldiers are gone."

The Gallic Chronicle of 454 places the ascension of Vortigern to Britain's kingship in 425. I believe there is also an indirect reference to this in Prosper. So, even at this late date... and after a couple of decades of Britains wrangling against each other for primacy, the Romans are past history.

Germanus - interesting source, by no means your 'run of the mill hagiography' but not an historical acount either. We have no clue whatsoever where Germanus encountered the Picts. Prosper helps a lot with his 429 date, which could indicate (if we were inclined to seek this) a loss of central military command making militia forces a nessecity.

Prosper indeed mentions an incursion of the Saxons by 410, but that one is also described by Zosimus (but for 409 - these dates are not solid, not in britain, nor gaul, nor Spain) as being defeated by the british:
"The barbarians above the Rhine, assaulting without hindrance, reduced the inhabitants of Britain and some of the Celtic peoples to defecting from the Roman rule and living their own lives, independent from the Roman laws. The Britons therefore took up arms and, braving the danger on their own behalf, freed their cities from the barbarian threat" (Historia Nova, Book VI.5.2-3).

The Gallic Chronicle up to 454 (not 'of 454', small detail)  unfortunately does not mention Vortigern. If only! Your reference is from the 9th c. Historia Brittonum from 'Nennius', who placed the Adventus saxonum in 428/429, the 4th year of the reign of Vortigern. Which brings us also to the Germanus date in Prosper.

[Renatus]

The fact he doesn't mention the sack of Rome is what most historians say dates him to before that timeframe.

V is only interested in the distant and glorious past, not the 'debased' present - besides, he may not have wanted to remind the emperor of recent tragedies. Therefore the lack of a mention of the events of 408-410 should not rule out a later date for the composition.

According to Roger Pearse, Zosimus "refers to the hated tax, the Chryargyrum (2.38.4), abolished by Anastasius I in 498, in terms that suggest strongly that he lived after that date.  Evagrius Scholasticus (elsewhere in this collection) writing at the end of the 6th century attacks Zosimus, and tells us that Eustathius, who died around 518,  also wrote against him. This allows us to date Zosimus to the early 6th century."

Some confusion here, I think. Evan and Nathan are referring to Vegetius.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Well it addresses 'the cities of Britain, but I agree with your point, only you're possibly mixing up Zosimus with what Procopius did later.

I was referring to the actual rescript of Honorius itself, not the later references by Zozimus and Procopius.

Did anyone read this book?
Scharf, Ralf (2005): Der Dux Mogontiacensis und die Notitia Dignitatum, eine Studie zur spätantiken Grenzverteidigung, Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, Band 50, (Walter de Gruyter).

I haven't read it but I know what it's about. It proposes that the Dux Mogontiacum command was created after the crossing of the Rhine. Drinkwater talks about it in his "The Alamanni and Rome" as well.

Germanus - interesting source, by no means your 'run of the mill hagiography' but not an historical acount either. We have no clue whatsoever where Germanus encountered the Picts. Prosper helps a lot with his 429 date, which could indicate (if we were inclined to seek this) a loss of central military command making militia forces a nessecity.

We know he went over to address the Pelagian Heresy. It's possible he could have been a representative coordinating military and bureaucratic functions as well.

I don't know if the Battle of Mold parallels an Old Testament Biblical account or not, I'd have to re-read it and then compare it. If not, it's possible it took place.

The Gallic Chronicle up to 454 (not 'of 454', small detail) unfortunately does not mention Vortigern. If only! Your reference is from the 9th c. Historia Brittonum from 'Nennius', who placed the Adventus saxonum in 428/429, the 4th year of the reign of Vortigern. Which brings us also to the Germanus date in Prosper.

Except Constantius of Lyon reports that these were not Saxons, but Picts. However, that might be consistent if we consider the Adventus Saxonum to be the recruitment of Saxon Foederati to supplement Britains decaying Limitanei forces.

[Robert Vermaat]

Some confusion here, I think. Evan and Nathan are referring to Vegetius.

You are correct!

---

Well it addresses 'the cities of Britain, but I agree with your point, only you're possibly mixing up Zosimus with what Procopius did later.

I was referring to the actual rescript of Honorius itself, not the later references by Zozimus and Procopius.

 Indeed you were, and I agree with you.

---

I don't know if the Battle of Mold parallels an Old Testament Biblical account or not, I'd have to re-read it and then compare it. If not, it's possible it took place.
[..]
Except Constantius of Lyon reports that these were not Saxons, but Picts. However, that might be consistent if we consider the Adventus Saxonum to be the recruitment of Saxon Foederati to supplement Britains decaying Limitanei forces.

You refer to it as 'the battle of Mold' but the location is unknown. Many theories exist but Constantius does not give us that location. I have little doubt about its authenticity btw.
About the invaders, Constantius does mention the saxons in that battle: 
"Meanwhile the Saxons and Picts had joined forces to make war upon the Britons" (De Vita Germani, 3.15,16).

[ValentinianVictrix]

I personally think Vegetius was writing near to or just after the sack of Rome. The basis of this is that although he does not specifically mention Rome itself he does make a statement which in itself suggests the sack of Rome was perhaps known to him-

'The manner of arming the troops comes next under consideration. But the method of the ancients no longer is followed. For though after the example of the Goths, the Alans and the Huns, we have made some improvements in the arms of the cavalry, yet it is plain the infantry are entirely defenseless. From the foundation of the city till the reign of the Emperor Gratian, the foot wore cuirasses and helmets. 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.'

Now, we have some information to work with from the above statement.
First off, the mention of Gratian in the past tense tells us Vegetius was writing after that Emperor's death in AD383. Stating that improvements were made to Roman Cavalry 'after the example of the Goths, the Alans and the Huns' also gives a clue as to the dating. The Goths had been employed at various times during the 3rd Century AD but the treaty of 332AD was when greater numbers of Goth's began to be employed in the Roman army. Gratian employed Alans from around 382AD (which led directly to his death in 383) and Huns were in Roman employ from at least 400AD. So familiarity of those tribes arms and tactics can only come from close contact with those tribes in a manner where the Romans were employing them rather than fighting them. So we could say Vegetius was writing no earlier than 400AD based on this premise.
The last clue is this statement- '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.' I get the sense here that Vegetius is alluding to the Goth's being the main destroyers of the cities in question, so what cities after the death of Gratian did the Goth's destroy? Well, we know that in during the Gothic war of 376AD to 378AD the Goths found taking walled cities by storm almost impossible, and the same was true under Emperor Theodosius, practically all the cities and towns that were ravaged were other unwalled ones or ones where the Goths gained access by other means. Its after 400AD when Alaric appears that the Goths begin to successfully take cities by storm, probably due to the fact that Alaric and many of his Goth's had learnt the means of doing so from their Roman employers. Alaric and his Goths are credited with the destruction of the following cities before the sack of Rome itself- he sacked Piraeus and destroyed Corinth, Megara, Argos, Sparta, Aquileia and Cremona and ravaged the lands along the Adriatic Sea. Many of these cities would have been considered as great one's to a person like Vegetius. So we can say that it is highly likely Vegetius was referring to these cities when he wrote and therefore he was writing after 408AD. And then there is the sack of Rome itself in 410. Now, this may well have not been mentioned by Vegetius for several reasons. One of course is that whilst the Goths did indeed sack the city, it was probably the most civilised of plunderings imaginable as it happened over three days, the citizens were treated almost kindly and very little damage was caused. And then Alaric and his Goth's left with their plunder. And of course Vegetius may well have wanted to gloss over the fact that Rome was sacked as it was the 'Eternal City' and admitting the Goths had entered and plundered it may not have been advantageous to mention! So I would suggest a date after 408AD would be when Vegetius was writing his 'Epitome'.

[Renatus]

An interesting post, Adrian. For the reasons that I have mentioned, I am disinclined to accept that Vegetius wrote after the fall of Rome but, although I do not want to commit myself before completing my researches, I have long wondered whether his emperor might have been Honorius.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Huns were in Roman employ from at least 400AD.

Theodosius also employed Huns in his campaigns, so at least the 380's.

The question is, how well informed was Vegetius? I mean whole hagiographies state half of Gaul was razed to the ground by Attila, many of which were written in the late 5th or early 6th century, but Attila probably only sacked a dozen cities on his direct route to Aurelianum.

Surely he could have been writing after 383, and his information could have been exaggerated rumors. After all he was a veterinarian with no military experience writing what he observed of parade units in Milan or Ravenna.

[Robert Vermaat]

The last clue is this statement- '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.' 

We've been discussing this over the years.
In my opinion, there may be read too much detail into some of Vegetius' statements. 

As to the 'destruction of many great cities',  if not a hyperbole we see often in statements from various authors from this period, post-408 could be a good guess, but why not even more forward in time, say c. 420 or later?

[Renatus]

After all he was a veterinarian with no military experience writing what he observed of parade units in Milan or Ravenna.

This is far too sweeping.

After all he was a veterinarian . . .

Although some scholars regard the Flavius Vegetius Renatus who wrote the Epitoma rei militaris as the same as the Publius Vegetius Renatus who wrote the Mulomedicina, this cannot be said to be a certainty. It is possible that they were related but I would not go further than that.

. . . writing what he observed of parade units in Milan or Ravenna.

This is pure speculation. Very little or none of his information seems to derive from personal observation and there is nothing to say that he did not glean the vast majority of it from books, as he claims.

. . . why not even more forward in time, say c. 420 or later?

See my posts above.