Julian and the invasion of Persia

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Jens, I've removed the Heruli and Batavi from my 'Big Hypothetical List of Units'.

No you haven't :wink: :

Praesentalis Army
CORNUTI - sent to Constantine, earlier
MATTIARII
LANCEARII
EQUITES CATAPHRACTARII ?? several unitsi
HERCULIANI
BRACCHIATI
VICTORES
BATAVI
IOVIANI
FORTENSES (Comes Hispaniensis??)

I think the units trapped and most probably destroyed at Amida (like the Tricesimani) are very unlikely to have been with Julian.

Why do you call it the Italian field army?

[Mithras]

My barbarian rendering of Latin I found in the ND.

Intra Italiam cum viri illustris magistri peditum ('Master of Foot in his Italian command'??)

Was this not a field army?

Why do you call it the Italian field army?

[Robert Vermaat]

If it were, it would have been the Gallic field army when Julian was moving aginst Constantius? And it would have become a praesantal army when he continued into Persia, I guess.. Remember that the Notitia was written 30 years later. I'm by no means sure if there was an Italian field army as well as a Gallic field army in 363, but the Italian one would probably have been with Constantius - Julian was a Caesar only, Constantius ruled in Italy.

The only info we have on Julian's units mostly concerns the ones he raised in Gaul during his reign, those he had to send to Constantius, and the ones with him on his Persian campaign.

[Mithras]

Oh I'm certainly not suggesting that there was an Italian army in 360, but it does seem as if lots of units within that command would come from a much earlier Gallic field army of the mid-4thC.

I know its very hard to discuss and debate 'hypotheticals' with imprecise and contradictory information.... I apologise for any mental turmoil I may cause!

I'm really only after a 'rough' or 'hypothetical' list, and with yours and Daniele's and Jen's help I certainly think I can give a good account of a Persian campaign force without creating too many obvious mistakes. It will probably consist of the units in my last post, with much more of the Eastern field army, supplemented by several limitanei from each limes (but not all the limitanei units, for security's sake...)

If it were, it would have been the Gallic field army when Julian was moving aginst Constantius? And it would have become a praesantal army when he continued into Persia, I guess.. Remember that the Notitia was written 30 years later. I'm by no means sure if there was an Italian field army as well as a Gallic field army in 363, but the Italian one would probably have been with Constantius - Julian was a Caesar only, Constantius ruled in Italy.

The only info we have on Julian's units mostly concerns the ones he raised in Gaul during his reign, those he had to send to Constantius, and the ones with him on his Persian campaign.

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

The presence of the legion of Zianni, commanded by Vetranio, killed in action at Maranga is certain in my opinion: that fact it's attested by Ammianus XXV 1,19 and Zosimus III, 28 too. Even if not mentioned in the Notitia, there was surely a legion called so and its commander was well known, it's enough for me...

A regiment of Protectores Domestici is to be put in the list.

The Legio IV Scythica it was commanded by Septimius Seuerus in Syria and was there till the V century... It's to be investigated too...

Valete,

[Mithras]

An ammended list:

Eastern Field Army
I ARMENIACA - Claudiopolis (Cappadocia - Armenia II), till 359 AD.
EQUITES TERTIACI - cavalry unit
II ARMENIACA
ZIANNI - no known base associated with it, probably not limitanei?

Magister Officiorum
SCHOLA SCUTARIORUM I
SCHOLA SCUTARIORUM II - Vitalianus is made their commander at Tyana, late fall 363. Both Prima and Secunda are mentioned in a battle immediately after Julian's death. Equitius, commander of the Prima, is seen as candidate after Jovian dies.
SCHOLA GENTILIUM - could this be the unit in AM called Gentiles?

Praesentalis Army
(Many loyal troops taken from the Gallic field army)
PROTECTORES DOMESTICORUM - Ammianus was a member
SUPERVENTORES ??
CORNUTI - sent to Constantine, earlier
IOVII
MATTIARII
LANCEARII
EQUITES CATAPHRACTARII ?? several unitsi
HERCULIANI
BRACCHIATI
VICTORES
IOVIANI
FORTENSES (Comes Hispaniensis??)
PETULANTES
CELTAE
COMITES SAGITTARII (vex pal.)

Dux Syriae
??LEGIO XVI FLAVIAE FIRMAE - Samosata
??LEGIO IV SCYTHICA - Zeugma (3rdC) or Sura (ND)

Other units given in this thread I have on a reserve list, but cannot place into any army group. This is the reserve list:

II FLAVIA VIRTUTIS
CANDIDATI
II FLAVIA GEMINA - At Bezabde in 360. He interprets Ammianus' I and II Flavia as the I and II Flavia Gemina from the Notitia Dignitatum
LEGIO I PONTICA - based at that time in Trebizond (modern Trabzon in Turkey) on the Black Sea
TRICESIMANI
DECIMANI
PRAEVENTORES

By my count, that is 24 regiments. If we just assume this tentative reconstruction (none of it wild and too speculative) accompanied Julian into Persia, then that already accounts for between 12,000 troops (assuming a low troop estimate of 500-man regiments) and 24,000 troops (assuming a higher estimate of 1000-man regiments).

I think Zosimus gives a figure of around 64,000 men for the entire force, doesn't he? Of course this reconstruction does not figure in the Roman forces stationed in Armenia, and the local Armenian troops.

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

We have to add that arab unit of Saracens who fought for Iulianus, whose noblesmen submitted themselves and recognizing him as only Imperator too (XXIII 3,8 and 5,1 plus XXIV 1,10), then they passed to the Persians for money matter. Maybe about 500 horsemen...

And don't forget those units of young Laeti, possibly the same Iulianus as Caesar offered to Costantius for the persian campaign...

The Zianni were called "legion" by Ammianus, like the Primani, or the Regii.

BTW, the Regii (or Reges) legion that was at Argentoratus, was formed by Iudaeii Emeseni. This is just a speculation, to be explorated deeply, but do you think that Iulianus should have not brought those semitic men in the East with him? It's more likely that he left just part of the german troops to defend the western limes, seen that the Gauls followed him in Persia...

Vale,

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

I have also to add that according to J.R. Gonzalez the Regii were a legion formed by Costantinus in 312-324, anyway, C. Zuckerman says that they were Auxilia recruited by Aurelianus in 273, also because at Argentoratus they fought in the very first line like generally any Auxilia did...

Vale,

[Mithras]

I will leave out the Saracens for now, from the memory of my last reading of AM, they joined the campaign after Julianus crossed the Euphrates.

Zianni being described as a legion does of course mean that it is a limitanei regiment. Oh well! It will have to remain 'unattributed' and 'without a home' until archaeology one day unearths a legionary tile stamp at some remote, long forgotten desert outpost!

I will look into the Laeti ...

We have to add that arab unit of Saracens who fought for Iulianus, whose noblesmen submitted themselves and recognizing him as only Imperator too (XXIII 3,8 and 5,1 plus XXIV 1,10), then they passed to the Persians for money matter. Maybe about 500 horsemen...

And don't forget those units of young Laeti, possibly the same Iulianus as Caesar offered to Costantius for the persian campaign...

The Zianni were called "legion" by Ammianus, like the Primani, or the Regii.

[Robert Vermaat]

TZANNI:

The Tzanni were a comitatensan unit from the Thracian army. Named after a tribe from Pontus, very possibly recruited from Pontic soldiers. They might be the old Legio I Pontica, but secure evidence fails (although similar examples exist: the Legio II Augusta was most probably the same as the Secunda Britones).
Ammianus mentions that their tribune Vetriano was killed near Maranga, just a few days before Julian died.

AM XXV.1.19, Zos III.28.2 (incident, but no unit name)

EQUITES TERTIACI (Equites Tertii clibanarii Parthi?):
Ammianus mentions a Tertiacorum Equestris numerus, that was punished for cowardice. In June 363, they left the front line (sounds much like Strasbourg 357!) and Julian punished them by making them guards. Only the commander was brave, he received anouther unit. Since the Equites Tertii clibanarii Parthi don't show up in the Notitia Dignitatum, and if they still existed, it would be almost unthinkable that they were not present, we may see them in Ammianus' Tertiaci.

AM XXV.1.7-9.

[Robert Vermaat]

BATAVI-ERULI

I'd say from Zosimus and Ammianus we can conclude that the Batavi-Eruli were definitely NOT in Persia but stayed behind in Gallia.
Zos. 3.35.2: in summer 363, one of the first tasks of new emperor Jovian is to secure the troops in Gaul. Therefore he sends men to them who could achieve that:

Jovian now turning his attention to the affairs of government, made
various arrangements, and sent Lucilianus his father-in-law, Procopius, and Valentinian, who was afterwards emperor, to the armic.s in Pannoriia, to inform them of the death of Julian, and of his being chosen emperor. The Batavians who were at Sirmium, and were left there for its protection, as soon as they received the news, put to death Lucilianus who brought such unwelcome intelligence, without regard to his relationship to the emperor. Such was the respect they had to Jovian's relations, that Valentinian himself only escaped from the death they intended to inflict on him. Jovianus proceeding from Antioch towards Constantinople, ...

Hoffmann denies that evidence because of Zosimus mentioning Sirmium instead of Reims, where according to Ammian (AM 25.10.6-7) the rebellion took place.

The Vitalianus of the Eruli, promoted into Jovians guards in late autumn 363, IMHO also implies the Eruli beeing stationed in Gaul before that time. The reason: Ammianus mentions this episode when he speaks of the return of Valentinan from his mission in Gaul (see above), together with officers (I would say of the in Gaul stationed units) who should show their allegiance to Jovian.

Hi Jens,

First of all you’re right about the nature of the evidence. The Batavi are never actually mentioned as present with Julian. Hoffmann starts with the following assumptions:
a) The Batavi and Eruli are a pair who always fight together, and are not in action on their own. I can agree with that part.
b) The Batavi and Eruli were meant to go to Constantius as elite units, but Julian’s elevation to Augustus put a stop to that. Hoffmann thinks it would be strange if these elite units then had been left behind in Gaul after all. I can see where Hoffmann is going, but it’s not real proof.
c) We do find Vitalianus of the Eruli in Tyana, late fall 363. But indeed, I can see that with some shoving and pushing this can be changed to a single man travelling there, or the unit arriving there from the West.
d) Like you say, Hoffmann denies the incident of the Batavi killing Lucillianus in Sirmium and puts his death (rightly) in Reims.

Does that put the Batavi definitely (and therefore also the Eruli) not with Julian? I don’t know if that’s so definite. Personally I think the negative evidence would weigh more than the vague remark by Zosimus, which could (Hoffmann does not think of that) involve one of the very many Batavian cohorts that are still to be found in the army – no special need to see the partner-unit of the Eruli here.

So no, there is no evidence that the Batavi and Eruli definitely did not go with Julian.
I would say there is as much evidence that they did go as there is that they didn’t go, and a lot of negative evidence to suppose that they went after all.

[Mithras]

Hi Robert,

Well spotted with the Zianni, Tzanni/Tanni connection! How did you find that?

I see your point concerning the Heruli and Batavi. Since the army build-up in 360 seems to warrant this brigade's prersence, I certainly do agree that in 363 the same army would still need that brigade. Of course things don't always go 'as they should' in history and the brigade may have been given other more pressing jobs. But finding out that Constantius requested their presence in Antioch does make me think they are likely candidates to have accompanied Julian to the East (along with most of the fighing units!!). The Eastern 'field army' (as depicted in the ND) looks parhetic in comparison with this great Western army coming across the Hellespont.

[Robert Vermaat]

Well spotted with the Zianni, Tzanni/Tanni connection! How did you find that?

Hoffmann of course
But I thought of Secunda Britones myself. :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

I really appreciate the work of Hoffmann, but one has to use it VERY carefully.

Jens, I've opened a new thread here: http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... 861#121861

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

Great thread guys! I see it as a very useful work. I'd like to have all your books...

Robert, I find the Zianni called as well as Taanni too... Is Tanni one name more for them?

Natuspardo, you're welcome too to collaborate in reconstructing THE complete list...

Valete,