Seniores and Iuniores (again)

[kavan]

Colonel Chabert wrote :-

> There are a number of legions created by Julius Caesar and revived shortly afterwards by Octavian that are still attested in the Notitia almost 450 years later. Even within the timeframe of the 4th century the senior western units fought innumerable actions against the Germans, went to Persia and back and suffered defeat in one civil war after another and yet at the end of the century they are still there (at least on paper!).

Surely you could say the same thing about the English army in the last millennium.

[Mark Hygate]

.....

Surely you could say the same thing about the English army in the last millennium.

Somewhat different environment, however...

For the 'English', post-1066, there are few major military defeats, certainly where entire units are wiped out - and not then reconstituted.  From the Horse & Musket period onwards, you then also have an organisational issue to factor in - where Regiments often sent only a single battalion somewhere, with a second staying at home.  Or even one like the 95th Rifles that sent Battalions and sometimes only independant companies all over the place - but the 'unit' stayed.

The long service and longevity of several of the Roman legions, must also be noted against the 'Legions' (major formation at, perhaps, to be considered 'Regimental' or 'Brigade' level) that we know almost nothing more about than they were defeated/destroyed and never replaced (eg XVII, XVIII & XVIIII) - it wasn't until 100 years later that the Roman Army even increased once more to the 30 Legion level.

[Nathan Ross]

The continuity and survivability of Roman units over long periods of time is, I think, one of the more astonishing things about the Roman army.

Yes, there are certainly some very long-lasting units - the most famous one being Legio V Macedonica, formed in the mid 1st century BC and still around in the mid 7th AD - although it had apparently dwindled from a legion of c.6000 men to a subunit of c.400 men even by AD399, it was at least based where the Notitia claims it was based, and at the right time too.

However, the apparent longevity of some other units listed in the ND may be deceptive, I think.

I still tend to believe that the main text of the document most likely records the situation under Valentinian and Valens, with subsequent successive corrections and amendations carried out not very scrupulously, and to a later date in the west. Much of the western section would be obsolete by AD420 - probably only the dispositions on the Rhine and perhaps the latter part of the Gallic field army list are accurate for that date - and a lot of the western lists would have become hopelessly confused and inaccurate during the anarchy of the 401-411 period. The limitanei garrisons of Britain and the Danube were, I would think, almost entirely gone by AD400, if not long before.

So while many of the units listed apparently did survive into the fifth century - several are mentioned on the Concordia tombstones for c.400, and there's an inscription for the Cornuti Seniores from Rome dated c.407 - they may not have been where the ND says they were, and may not have lasted much beyond that point.

[Robert Vermaat]

I would like to say that it was not a case of dwindling down so much but more a case of being split up - in fact there were several V Macedonia units by c. 400.

[Colonel Chabert]

To return to the thread of the OP; If there was no large scale creation of Iuniores units at Naissus in 364/ 5 (the dating of this event isn't clear to me) what did happen there? Ammianus tells us that the two new emperors, after leaving Constantinople, hastened across Thrace and then stopped at Naissus where they agreed, or Valentinian imposed, on who should get which generals. Then, we are told, the troops also were divided between the two emperors. Ammianus says nothing more on the subject, quickly moving on to other matters, which doesn't suggest that anything momentous occurred.

So which troops are we talking about here? The entire army? The Persian expeditionary force? Only those units actually physically present at Naissus? My impression has been that most commentators think this refers to the combined forces assembled for the campaign against Persia. This army contained units from both West and East and so is an obvious candidate for being divided up. It seems unlikely however that this army was present in its entirety at Naissus. Most of it would have been composed of Eastern units and there wouldn't seem much point in them traipsing across Thrace, over the Succi pass and on to Naissus only to return back to their cantonments in the East. Keeping an army of this size together was also a logistical nightmare to be avoided whenever possible and furthermore the evidence of the Divitenses and Tungricani Iuniores suggest that some at least of these units were still making there way home from the Middle East (the D and T don't seem to have reached Constantinople until after Naissus). A more reasonable scenario would be that only the Western units followed the Emperors to Naissus. Most of these subsequently continued on to the West with Valentinian while Valens returned to Constantinople with a small force, this latter thus effectively being transferred from West to East. Could this be the "division" that Ammianus refers to?

Is there evidence that any new units were created or that units were transferred from West to East? If we look at the short list of Eastern Iuniores regiments with their Seniores equivalents in the West we see that most of them cannot have been created at Naissus for reasons given in the OP (most of them are too senior and already existed). There is, on the other hand, evidence for transferred units.
The Batavii Seniores-Regii pairing fought together at Strasbourg in 357 (per Ammianus) but are not heard of again in the West. They do however appear in the Eastern praesental list in the ND so must have been transferred at some time.
Similarly there are four regiments of Cataphractarii in the Eastern lists that seem to have come from the West and which were probably the same as the Cataphractarii mentioned by Ammianus, again in the context of the Strasbourg campaign. These four are the Biturigenses, the Ambianenses, the Albigenses and one unnamed which can probably be identified as the Pictavenses attested in an inscription. These four names all refer to cities in Gaul; Bourges, Amiens, Albi and Poitiers respectively. Gaul was not known for producing extra heavy cavalry but within Gaul there were a number of settlements of Sarmatian prisoners (laetii). The Sarmatians were known for their cataphract style cavalry and two of their settlement areas were near Amiens and Poitiers! I would suggest therefore thta these regiments were raised from the Sarmatian community in Gaul, fought with Julian in his campaigns against the Alemanni, accompanied him to the East (or followed later for the Persian expedition) and were then definitively transferred to the Eastern army.
There is also the Sallii-Tubantes pair of Auxilia Palatinae which appear in a senior position in the Eastern praesental list and which must have been transferred there at some point.

So that is my suggestion for what happened at Naissus. The brothers were accompanied there by the western portion of the combined army used in the Persian campaign. Valentinian continued on his way West with the bulk of this force while Valens returned to the East in the company of the Cataphracts and a few units of Auxilia Palatina. No new units were created nor was there any major reorganisation of the army.

Cordialement, et Joyeux Noel!

Le Colonel

[Renatus]

Similarly there are four regiments of Cataphractarii in the Eastern lists that seem to have come from the West and which were probably the same as the Cataphractarii mentioned by Ammianus, again in the context of the Strasbourg campaign. These four are the Biturigenses, the Ambianenses, the Albigenses and one unnamed which can probably be identified as the Pictavenses attested in an inscription. These four names all refer to cities in Gaul; Bourges, Amiens, Albi and Poitiers respectively. Gaul was not known for producing extra heavy cavalry but within Gaul there were a number of settlements of Sarmatian prisoners (laetii). The Sarmatians were known for their cataphract style cavalry and two of their settlement areas were near Amiens and Poitiers! I would suggest therefore thta these regiments were raised from the Sarmatian community in Gaul, fought with Julian in his campaigns against the Alemanni, accompanied him to the East (or followed later for the Persian expedition) and were then definitively transferred to the Eastern army.

This ties in generally with my theory, expressed here some years ago, that cataphractarii were based on the Sarmatian model, more heavily armoured than the standard cavalry but less so than clibanarii or cataphracti equites, which followed the Parthian or Sassanian pattern.

[Nathan Ross]

I would like to say that it was not a case of dwindling down so much but more a case of being split up - in fact there were several V Macedonia units by c. 400.

At the time of the Notita, certainly. But I think only the Egyptian subunit continued in existence into the 7th century, and unless it was enlarged at some pont it presumably continued at c.400 men or so.

Naissus in 364/ 5 (the dating of this event isn't clear to me)

Valentinian proclaimed Valens co-emperor at the Hebdomon suburb of Constantinople on March 29th AD364. By late August of that year Valentinian was in Emona, and by September he was in Aquileia and then Mediolanum (as recorded by laws in the Theodosian Code). The two emperors then assumed their consulships on January 1st AD365 in Mediolanum and Constantinople. So we can safely put the conference at Medianum outside Naissus in the summer of 364.

furthermore the evidence of the Divitenses and Tungricani Iuniores suggest that some at least of these units were still making there way home from the Middle East (the D and T don't seem to have reached Constantinople until after Naissus).

The Divitenses and Tungricani Iuniores of Amm.Mar 26.6.12 were part of the eastern field army. Valens had marched out of Constantinople in early summer 365, but was informed of Gothic incursions across the Danube and was obliged to send part of his army back west again, the units passing through Constantinople on their way into Thrace. Procopius declared himself emperor in the city on 28th September 365, supported by the two legions at that point resting on their march.

So that is my suggestion for what happened at Naissus... Valentinian continued on his way West with the bulk of this force while Valens returned to the East in the company of the Cataphracts and a few units of Auxilia Palatina.

Ammianus seems to suggest that the conference at Naissus was mainly about dividing the military commanders between the two emperors. All had been Julian's men, so it would have been important to make sure that the two commands were balanced and neither emperor was left with men he could not trust. Only 'after matters had been thus arranged,' Ammianus says, were 'the troops also divided between the two emperors' (26.5.3)

On that one small phrase (Quibus ita digestis et militaris partiti numeri), it seems to me, far too much has been made to hang. The conference was more likely political than military in its focus, and the troops apportioned as an afterthought were surely those accompanying the emperors at that point, or under the direct command of the various generals.

So I would agree with you that this was not the time or place for a widespread reorganisation of the army, let alone a splitting of all units in two!

[Colonel Chabert]

Hi Nathan.

Valentinian proclaimed Valens co-emperor at the Hebdomon suburb of Constantinople on March 29th AD364. By late August of that year Valentinian was in Emona, and by September he was in Aquileia and then Medionalum (as recorded by laws in the Theodosian Code). The two emperors then assumed their consulships on January 1st AD365 in Mediolanum and Constantinople. So we can safely put the conference at Medianum outside Naissus in the summer of 364.

Ah, thanks for that. What confused me was Ammianus saying "then the emperors spent the winter quietly in perfect harmony". I took this to perhaps refer to the winter of 364/5 rather than the previous one.

---

The Divitense and Tungricani Iuniores of Amm.Mar 26.6.12 were part of the eastern field army. Valens had marched out of Constantinople in early summer 365, but was informed of Gothic incursions across the Danube and was obliged to send part of his army back west again, the units passing through Constantinople on their way into Thrace. Procopius declared himself emperor in the city on 28th September 365, supported by the two legions at that point resting on their march.

Right, I missed that. So assuming these units were part of the Persian Expedition this was the second time they passed through Constantinople coming from the East.

On that one small phrase (Quibus ita digestis et militaris partiti numeri), it seems to me, far too much has been made to hang.

I agree with this entirely!

[Nathan Ross]

What confused me was Ammianus...

Trying to determine his chronology is often rather mind-bending. If you have a few spare hours, try to work out what happened when in AD361-2...

So assuming these units were part of the Persian Expedition this was the second time they passed through Constantinople coming from the East.

Presumably (based on the names) both units originally came from the west. A detachment of them might have marched east with Julian in 361, and ended up based there and renamed Iuniores. As eastern field army units they would have returned to the area around Constantinople (probably) after the debacle in Persia, then marched east with Valens, then back to Constantinople again on their way to Thracia.

Ammianus mentions a Tungrecani and Divitenses pair fighting the Alamanni on the Rhine in January 367, which cannot possibly have been the same units that supported Procopius, so must have been the ones (later?) called Seniores.

There's also a Iovii and Victores pair who defected to Procopius in the winter of 365-66; these are apparently not the same units sent to Britain under Comes Theodosius in 367-8. Interesting that Ammianus identifies the eastern Tungri/Divitenses par as Iuniores but doesn't distinguish the others. I don't think he calls any unit Seniores.