Defense of the Diocese of Pontica

[Lothia]

I am so confused.
I am struggling to learn all I can about the later Roman Empire (AD 335 - AD 400) to allow me to write a novel that presents as much truth as I can about those times. I do not want to use the AUTHOR’S LICENSE to make up facts because they are not readily available.

At present I am trying to sort out the defenses of the eastern Empire.
I am concerned, at this point, in the defenses of the diocese of Pontica.

In the year AD 336 the White Huns invaded Armenia. I assume it was not just the vassal kingdom of Armenia, but the Roman provinces too (Armenia I and Armania II).

In their defense was (beside the army of the king of Armenia) the Duke of Armenia with his three legions and 24 other units.

But what about the remainder of Pontica? There is a Count of Isauria, but on the map I have, it looks like Isaurium is in the south east corner of Turkey, in the Diocese of the Oriens.

If that is so, then who is watching the bandits in the mountains of Cappadocia and the other reprobates, crooks and other types of bad people in all the other provinces of that diocese?
Additonally, in that year, Hannibalianus was Caesar (king of kings) of Pontica. Had he no forces at his disposal?

Thanks. You guys have been a tremendous aid.

Me.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Tom,

Well, don't get confused, it's an easy mistake to make. The borders of the military commands are not the same as the borders of the provinces and diocese. For instance, Britain had three military commands, which did not match the provinces.

You looked at the map of the diocese and noticed two provinces called Armenia, and you assume that the Dux Armeniae was the commander of these provinces. He is not. In fact, the command of the Dux Armeniae is the entire border of the Pontica diocese, not just the two provinces. But not the entire diocese.

The defence of the rest of the diocese fell under the troops of the Magister Militum per Orientem. This meant also the inner areas of the diocese, since the civilian authorities had been bereft of troops. Isauria had a seperate command because of the very troublesome hillmen there.

Also read:
Brennan, Peter, 'The user's guide to the Notitia Dignitatum: the case of the Dux Armeniae (ND Or. 38)' in: Antichthon 32 (1998), pp. 34-49.

[Lothia]

Sir,

Thanks for your response. I looked for Brennan's paper through a Google search. It brought me to a university in Australia.

I wrote them about obtaining a copy.

I have one more question.

You wrote that

The defence of the rest of the diocese fell under the troops of the Magister Militum per Orientem

but in AD 336 there was both Hannibalianus and Constantius II as caesars in the east.

Were the forces of the Magister Militum per Orientem divided among those two caesars?

I am not a student and live deep in the bowels of no-where, the nearest college is 60 miles distant. Because of that I do not have access to collegate libraries. I appreciate your taking time to respond.

Me

Tom Chelmowski

[Robert Vermaat]

I have one more question.
You wrote that

The defence of the rest of the diocese fell under the troops of the Magister Militum per Orientem

but in AD 336 there was both Hannibalianus and Constantius II as caesars in the east.
Were the forces of the Magister Militum per Orientem divided among those two caesars?

The caesar had (in theory) power over all the forces in his jurisdiction. When there were two caesars, that meant splitting up the jurisdictions (if they recognised each other) or getting hold of what you could (if they did not).

In this case, they did. But Constantius was fighting in Dacia at the time, so he was commanding forces usually under the command of the magister militum per Thracias, he was a real caesar with real power.

Hanniballanus was not. He was made Rex Regum et Ponticarum Gentium, 'King of the Kings and of the Ponthic People', not caesar. Hannibalanus was propbaly meant to become king of a protectorate gained in a campaign by Constantine against the Sassanids, which never took place because Constantine died on May 22, 337.

Hanniballanus was never a caesar but his brother Flavius Dalmatius was. Dalmatius was made caesar in control of control of Thracia, Achaea and Macedonia. But with Constantius fighting on the Danube that command will not have meant control over to many troops.

Hanniballanus and Dalmatius were sons of Flavius Dalmatius 'the censor', who was a son of Constantius I ('Chlorus') and thus a half-brother of Constantine ('the Great'). Being thus nephews to Constantine gave Hanniballanus and Dalmatius acces to power, but it was all very short-lived.
In the terrible purge (called the 'massacre of the princes') that followed the death of Constantine, the brothers were killed, as was their father Flavius Dalmatius, Julius Constantius (younger half-brother to Constantine) and one of his sons. His two other sons were spared (Gallus and Julian).

[Lothia]

I'm not sure how this "Quick Reply" works.

I wrote the message (below) and clicked on "Quick reply", but I saw no response.

So, I will try again through the "Submit" button. If there are multiple editions of this reply, please eighty-six one of them.

Me.

Ave Valerius,

Thanks again for your reply.

It was very helpful. I assumed that because Hannibalianus was King of Kings he would hold a similar power as would a caesar.

I also did not know that Constantius was in Dacia. I knew that Constantine I was campaigning against the Sarmatians east of Roman Valeria, but did not know Constatnius was there. Again, without many papers to draw from I assumed that the youngest, Constans would have been with Papa because of his allotment of Pannonia.

Thanks again for your time. You have been most helpful.

Tom

P.S. If I ever meet you, I will buy you a beer.

Tom

[Robert Vermaat]

It was very helpful. I assumed that because Hannibalianus was King of Kings he would hold a similar power as would a caesar.

Nah. King of kings (Rex Regum) is actually a Roman translation of a Persian and Armenian title, even in use in modern times (ShahinShah). It was the preperation of receiving a kingdom that the Romans intended to carve out in the upcoming campaign against Persia.
Alas. Fate had different designs.