Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The two Vegetii
#1
Was the writer Flavius Vegetius Renatus who wrote the Epitoma Rei Militaris the same person as Publius Vegetius Renatus the author of Digesta Artis Mulomedicinae? Vegetius always seems to create a lot of discussion in RAT mainly over dating of his works and military terminology but going back on some of the old threads he still comes across as a mysterious person who we really don't know too much about. 

Whether the two are the same person will probably never be able to be comprehensively proved or disproved but there is a little bit of information on the Vegetius who wrote the Mulomedicina?

Was he a veterinarian himself or a wealthy landowner, maybe an owner or trainer of chariot horses for the various circuses of the time of which there were many throughout the empire? In the sixth chapter of the third book of his Mulomedicina, he proclaims himself qualified to pronounce on the characteristics and merits of various breeds of horses because he has detailed personal knowledge of them, gained from his extensive travels throughout the empire and keeping horses in his own stables so being a veteran traveler who paid particular attention to the health of his mounts, he would have remembered the beneficial characteristics of the various breeds he encountered, and offered practical advice. Could he have been a wealthy bureaucrat charged with procuring military and civil mounts or as S. H. Rosenbaum suggested in his paper Who was Vegetius?, available on Academia, that Vegetius was a high ranking official with the cursus publicus ?

The late Dr Margaret Mezzabotta who was tragically killed in a car accident in South Africa in 2000 before she was able to complete a translation of Vegetius’s Mulomedicina wrote that Vegetius appeared to be a wealthy land owner who wrote the Mulomedicina for others and he said that he felt obliged to write the book for several reasons. Prominent among his motives were his own love for horses which he kept from a young age, his concern that contempt for veterinary medicine had led to its practice by poor-quality individuals; and because he thought that the books available were badly written. Veterinarians were not held in high esteem  for their work in those days except maybe for the army or for chariot horse racing, farmers and landholders were left to their own devices when it came to treating their animals and livestock and it was probably for them that he wrote this book. His main sources were Columella’s De Re Rustica, who Vegetius mentioned seemed only to cover farm management with not much information on cures, Apsyrtus a Greek who apparently was a late 3rd or early 4th century military veterinarian from Prousa or Nicomedia, and a soldier who served on the Danube under Constantine. Apsyrtus mentions Sarmatian and Thracian horses but does not say whether these Sarmatians were fighting for the Romans or against them and wrote that while campaigning with the legions he was stationed on the Danube, "I learned about the accidents that befall horses, and those in which they die and have gathered these, and the remedies for them". but Vegetius thought he showed poor Latinity in his writing, another source was the mid Fourth Century Ars veterinaria of Pelagonius which seemed to concentrate on race horses and Vegetius complained that Pelagonius seemed to be addressing himself to experts with a lack of basic information and the Mulomedicina Chironis, the author Chiron probably being a pseudonym from around the same period which was a compilation in 10 books, the first eight of which deal with horses and include references to donkeys and mules as well, while prescriptions and remedies for cattle, sheep, goats and pigs are found in the last two. Like Apsyrtus Vegetius thought Chiron’s book while technically superior was written in poor Latin. Other sources he may have used are The Curae Boum of Gargilius Martialis, an agricultural writer of the third century dealing with treatments for horses, mules and bovines also the De veterinaria medicina of Palladius which consisted of excerpts from Columella. 

Vegetius wrote in his prologue for his Mulomedicina “Since from my earliest days I have been fired with enthusiasm for keeping horses – I have seized on this task eagerly, to collect together into a single work all the Latin writers, at least, consulting the veterinary authors also and not omitting the medical writers (for veterinary scholarship does not differ in so many respects from the art of medicine but in most instances agrees with it) and, in so far as my mediocre ability allows, to set out all the essentials fully and concisely and to make known the causes and symptoms of diseases”.
Vegetius’s Mulomedicina consisted of four books, the first three devoted to horses and mules while the fourth, evidently added later at the request of friends, covers the diseases of cattle.

Vegetius seemed to have a genuine concern about the treatment of animals and was dissatisfied with the state of veterinary medicine in his day, with low fees paid for those who treat animals and with the neglectful and miserly attitude of owners. Similar to the author of the Epitome he complains about the influence of barbarians and he laments, “even the practice of the art itself has died, under the influence of the model offered by the Huns of not stabling their horses, or of other barbarian races, while people shrinking from spending money pretend that they are following the practice of barbarians and consign their animals, untreated, to winter pastures and to the accidents that arise from negligence”. Barbarian horses differ significantly in physique and upbringing. The horses of the barbarians are hardier than the Roman horses and from the time they are foals they are accustomed to manage without medication. They thrive in winter pastures and suffer no ill effects from the cold and frosts. Roman mounts, on the other hand, are more delicate. They are used to shelter and to warm stables (Vegetius presumably had their winter care specifically in mind). If they were to be left out in the open in winter to fend for themselves, any minor ailment might cause them to develop a serious disease immediately.

But while he complains about the barbarians on one hand he does offer praise on some of their treatment methods such as fixing hip-dislocations on their horses. “After warming and relaxing the afflicted area by placing the animal in the sun and massaging the joint, they try to make the hip snap back into place. One man leads the horse while another follows, holding a longish rope tied to the upper part of the femur. The horse is encouraged to run and the man with the rope jerks it back towards himself. A clicking sound indicates that the dislocation has been corrected.” He never mentioned which barbarians treated their horses injuries like this but maybe Huns or Alans.  Smile
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Reply
#2
Interesting. However, apart from the name, do these writers share anything? Flavius does not mention horses much I think - which he might do if he was a horse enthusiast? Also, the fact that we have both names does rather point to different men (though perhaps related) rather than both being the same.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#3
He sort of glosses over it but states that improvements to Roman cavalry had been provided by the Goths, Alans, and Huns (one of the reasons I think he wrote for Valentinian III in the late 430's). Beyond that he really doesn't go into detail on horses.
Reply
#4
(04-10-2018, 10:45 PM)Robert Vermaat Wrote: Also, the fact that we have both names does rather point to different men (though perhaps related) rather than both being the same.

All manuscripts of the Mulomedicina are attributed to Publius, while all but one of the manuscripts of the Epitoma are attributed to Flavius.  It has been suggested that Flavius is an honorific title denoting Vegetius' status in the late-Roman hierarchy and that the full rendition of his name would be Flavius Publius Vegetius Renatus. I tend to think that they are different people and  have suggested (with my tongue only partially in my cheek) that they were brothers and that any similarity in  their styles, which some scholars have observed, is due to their having the same tutor.

(04-11-2018, 01:44 AM)Flavivs Aetivs Wrote: He sort of glosses over it but states that improvements to Roman cavalry had been provided by the Goths, Alans, and Huns (one of the reasons I think he wrote for Valentinian III in the late 430's).

You don't have to go as late as Valentinian III to find these tribes.  Ammianus Marcellinus mentions them as being involved in the battle of Adrianople.
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#5
There were no Huns at Adrianople, regardless of what Ammianus says (who is writing very much with Herodotus in mind). Ammianus didn't know what a Hun was and had probably never met a Hun. His reports came from second or third-hand sources, mostly Goths.

Huns were not serving in the Roman army in any significant numbers until Uldin appears in the first decade of the 5th century AD. Vegetius' anathema against Foederati is also very interesting and falls more in line with the post-418 foedera than the 4th century style of treaty and service.
Reply
#6
(04-11-2018, 08:50 PM)Flavivs Aetivs Wrote: There were no Huns at Adrianople, regardless of what Ammianus says

I'm sorry; I wasn't there, so I cannot be adamant as to whether Ammianus is right or wrong. However, I do believe that he had reliable informants, the magister equitum Victor for one, and am therefore inclined to believe him.

(04-11-2018, 08:50 PM)Flavivs Aetivs Wrote: Huns were not serving in the Roman army in any significant numbers until Uldin appears in the first decade of the 5th century AD.

Huns need not have been serving in the army for the Romans to be aware of their methods of handling horses. I any event, the first decade of the 5th century is still well before Valentinian III.
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#7
(04-11-2018, 01:44 AM)Flavivs Aetivs Wrote: I think he wrote for Valentinian III in the late 430's

Aha, you've altered your opinion since this debate last year, Evan! [Image: wink.png]

Regarding Alans and Huns, Milner (intro to Epitome, p.xl) notes that V appears to regard them as one people (III,26), whereas, Milner says, 'they split up when the Alans joined the Vandals in 406, and the Huns remained settled in Pannonia until AD 427' - Milner sees this as evidence that V was writing before 406; although we might wonder whether a Roman writer of the day would be aware of this change, or even care...

(Milner also suggests that the two Vegetii were one and the same, and perhaps served as Comes Stabuli, which might explain the horse-sense - although whether the officer of this title had anything practical to do with stables and horses is unknown, I think!...)

The same passage (III,26) praises the emperor's skills in archery and horsemanship, which supposedly rival those of the Persians, the Huns and the Alans (!), and his weapons training generally - we might recall here that Valentinian III was murdered - by two 'barbarian' soldiers, probably Goths or Huns - while training with the bow...
Nathan Ross
Reply
#8
Quote:Aha, you've altered your opinion since this debate last year, Evan! [Image: wink.png]

This is because I read Goffart's arguments regarding federate settlement and realized how Vegetius' comments fit in perfectly with this.

Quote:I'm sorry; I wasn't there, so I cannot be adamant as to whether Ammianus is right or wrong. However, I do believe that he had reliable informants, the magister equitum Victor for one, and am therefore inclined to believe him.

The Romans were calling them Huns, but they were not Huns. They were just Oghur speakers. They end up in Pannonia under Theodosius I and then get moved to Thrace, where Rua wipes them out in 422. They were called Alpidzur and Tongur, not Huns. They may have claimed to be Huns (and they certainly could pass for Huns as they spoke Hunnish and were ethnically related), but the Hun political body was still on the Volga at the time, there's no way they could have been serving in Gothic armies from the Carpathian-Dniester region.

There hadn't been a major invasion from the steppes since the 3rd century and the name Hun was only transmitted to the Kuban by the Baktrians in the 360's. It's not surprising that the Romans had never encountered an Oghur Speaker before (they only appeared on the Don-Volga around 300ish).

Quote:Regarding Alans and Huns, Milner (intro to Epitome, p.xl) notes that V appears to regard them as one people (III,26), whereas, Milner says, 'they split up when the Alans joined the Vandals in 406, and the Huns remained settled in Pannonia until AD 427' - Milner sees this as evidence that V was writing before 406; although we might wonder whether a Roman writer of the day would be aware of this change, or even care...

427 is when Felix campaigned against "the Huns" in Pannonia (when Rua and Octar were already in the basin). The Huns settled in Pannonia by Theodosius were moved to Thrace in... the late 390's, IIRC (I need to check on that one).

Aetius employed a lot of Alans, so there's no reason he couldn't be referring to Huns, Alans, and Goths in Aetius' army as one body.

Quote:(Milner also suggests that the two Vegetii were one and the same, and perhaps served as Comes Stabuli, which might explain the horse-sense - although whether the officer of this title had anything practical to do with stables and horses is unknown, I think!...)

Yep, although IIRC Rance disagrees.

Quote:The same passage (III,26) praises the emperor's skills in archery and horsemanship, which supposedly rival those of the Persians, the Huns and the Alans (!), and his weapons training generally - we might recall here that Valentinian III was murdered - by two 'barbarian' soldiers, probably Goths or Huns - while training with the bow...

Also a good point. Valentinian III is also mentioned dismounting from horseback when he's assassinated.
Reply
#9
(04-12-2018, 01:59 PM)Flavivs Aetivs Wrote: The Romans were calling them Huns, but they were not Huns. They were just Oghur speakers.
No problem then. Ammianus and Vegetius, who could well have been contemporaries, may have made the same mistake, in which case Vegetius' reference to Huns tells us nothing about the dating.
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#10
It would probably be more accurate to just lump them under the Alans. They were fluid societies, not single ethnicities. Alans were Iranic-speakers, but that didn't mean everyone in their confederation was an Alan.

Huns, i.e. the actual imperial state of the Xiongnu (yes they were highly organized contrary to popular belief), were nowhere near the Romans.
Reply
#11
Flavius Aetius wrote:

Yep, although IIRC Rance disagrees

 Which Rance paper is that Evan? in his paper Drungus, δρουγγος, and δρουγγιστί: A Gallicism and Continuity in late Roman Cavalry Tactics Rance seems to be writing that they maybe the same person where old Gallic terms are used in both books as this excerpt shows 

Vegetius' Epitoma is the only extant general military treatise in Latin and as such uniquely preserves a considerable number of terms unattested before him, but very unlikely in every case to be neologisms of his period. A very similar example may be cited from Vegetius' own Digesta artis mulomedicinae, like his Epitoma a compendium of earlier writings and the only surviving general Latin treatise of its genre, in this instance veterinary medicine, principally equine. Here Vegetius uses another Gaulish word, gulbia, the term for a specially-designed tool used to cut away the dead part of a horse's hoof during an operation to release infected matter in cases of chronic lameness. This device appears to resemble a farrier's traditional butteris, a sharp, long-handled chisel for paring or trimming hooves.



Just on Vegetius, I have a copy of Vegetius that although is translated by Lieutenant John Clark, is edited by Thomas R. Phillips USA and in the introduction it is mentioned that 15th-16th century theologian and historian Raphael of Volterra called Vegetius a Count of Constantinople. Was this an honorary title or was he living in the eastern empire? In the mulomedicina Vegetius mentions harsh winters complaining that farmers and landholders don't stable their horses and leave them exposed to the winter elements but I always thought that most of the time winters in Italy were mostly if not mild were not that harsh except for northern Italy and other parts of Europe. Mind you I live in a region in Australia where winter temperatures hover around 17 degrees Celsius so I probably wouldn't know what a harsh winter is. Smile
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Reply
#12
Thanks Michael.

And AFAIK there was no "Comes Constantinopoli" although that could back the idea he was Comes Stabuli in Constantinople.
Reply
#13
(04-12-2018, 04:30 PM)Michael Kerr Wrote: I have a copy of Vegetius that although is translated by Lieutenant John Clark...

Count of Constantinople. Was this an honorary title or was he living in the eastern empire? 

You really need to get the 1993 Milner translation - it's far better, and the notes are invaluable! It's not massively expensive either (not compared to, say, this...)

Milner's introduction mentions that the subscriptiones to the Epitome tell us that Vegetius was a vir inlustris (a very prestigious title) and a Comes primi ordinis - literally a 'companion of the first class', although Comes is usually translated (highly misleadingly, I think) as 'Count'.

This was, as Milner puts it, 'a rank reserved for the highest echelons of the imperial bureaucracy or the army chiefs of staff. Since Vegetius disclaims all personal military knowledge... we may take it for granted he was a bureaucrat' (p.xxxv)

He goes on to suggest various options, including the aforementioned comes sacri stabuli - I now see that his footnote mentions that Goffart (1977) 'assumes that V was comes sacri stabuli under Valentinian III, c.440, without argument.'
Nathan Ross
Reply
#14
I do not speak or read Latin but if there is anyone who knows a bit would they be kind enough to be able to tell me if the following section from Book II of Mulomedicinae describes how Sarmatians geld their horses. A rough translation will suffice, Google translate is no help at all when it comes to attempting to translate Latin to English. Smile

This is the Latin text. 
farraginem ad substantiam dandam. Sarmatarum autem, quorum equitatus apud veteres plurimum valuerunt, usus invenit, ut animalia a collo usque ad pedes involvantur de sagis suppositisque carbonibus vivis addito castoreo suffumigentur, ut totum ventrem testiculosque eorum castorei fumus vaporet; et confestim detractis carbonibus cooperti deambulant et mingunt.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Reply
#15
"But of the sarmatians, whose horsemen were strong at (in?) many ages, discovered the use, in order that the animal might be covered down from the neck to the feet placed under a cloak and adding live coals smoked the (castoreus?) from under, in order that the smoke heated whole stomach and testicles of his (Castorei?); and immediately having pulled the buried coals they (the horses?) were walked down and were watered."

Crap it's been a while since I've actually had to translate something. This was the best I could do
Reply


Forum Jump: