Julian and the invasion of Persia

[Robert Vermaat]

Possible of course, but given the name I would rather see this unit as a 3rd-c. creation rather than a later 4th c. creation.

[Mithras]

Could these Goths be the Goths mentioned in Ammianus and potentially part of the expedition, in a pervious post on this thread they were estimated at 3,000 in number ...?

[Robert Vermaat]

I think these were Goths drafted a lot earlier, when the first Goth started raiding the Empire (or at least the unit they were drafted in originally).

The 3000 Goths fighting for Julian were probably not organised as a cohort. Although cohortes were kept in the army inventory, I don't think they were used for newly raised units. Maybe numeri, not cohortes.

[Ti Cl Nero]

Agreed, Robert
The treaty between Constantine and the Goths is still debated.
As for the supplying of troops which was probably part of the treaty, it seems now likely that the agreement required romans to ask troops when the need arose - Ammianus (XX.8.1) seems to suggest this while Jordanes (21.112) statements about a costantly available support of 40000 troops seems to be misleading (for instance Heather, "Roman and Goths", 1991).
I don't know if talking further about this treaty is off topic here, anyway it seems quite certain, also as a consequence of this aspect of the treaty, that troops sent by goths under it (as it seems the case for Julian's 3000 goths) were not organized in permanent, standing units; contingents would be formed up when requested (see also Barbero, "Barbari", 2005).
And, of course, they would not be organized as cohorts.


This Cohort Gotthorum from ND raises questions.
If I remember corrrecty, Speidel mentioned the raising of one numerus of Goths in III century, event though I haven't references right now.
Vale

[Ti Cl Nero]

Here is the reference for Speidel: he mentions a numerus of Goths gentiles stationed in Arabia and concludes that they must be placed in early III century (Speidel, "The Roman Army in Arabia", in ANRW II.8 (1978) pp. 687-730).
I haven't read it though, this article is mentiond by Nicasie.
Valete

[Robert Vermaat]

Here is the reference for Speidel: he mentions a numerus of Goths gentiles stationed in Arabia and concludes that they must be placed in early III century

Well, that would fit. Even earlier that I assumed. A numerus could later be organised into an independent cohort, I think?

[Ti Cl Nero]

Even earlier that I assumed. A numerus could later be organised into an independent cohort, I think?

I also would think at least at the second half of III century - not earlier.
Anyway it would be interesting to read Speidel's article and see how he reaches his conclusions.
I think it is quite possible that a numerus may be a core for a new cohors - particularly in such a case, considering the history of Gotho-Roman relations.
Vale

[Ti Cl Nero]

Correction to my previous post: would you believe I do have the article (in Speidel, "Roman Army Studies I") and I didn't remember?
Basically, there's a dated (February 28th, 208) inscription (AE 1911, 244) in Arabia (I'Nat) :

"Monument of Gouththa, son of Erminarius, commander of the tribal ("gentilion" in greek) unit stationed among the Mothani. He died at 14 y.o."

All depends upon the reading of the name of the kid (being the name of the father, Erminarius , a germanic name).
Speidel lists some options, but concludes that evidences (particularly in the Res Gestae Divi Saporis, written on the Kaaba i Zerdusht at Persepolis) of the word "Gouththa" in the III century greek meaning "the nation of Goths" and being used as personal name is now overwhelming.
So, Erminarius would be commander of a gothic ethnic unit (a numerus) of Gentiles (the term "Gentiles" makes sense considering the status of Roman-Gothic relations at that time) in 208 AD.
Speidel mentions an identical designations (Gothi gentiles) for a unit in another inscription (CIL III 12483, Rumania), dated 337-340 AD - which again makes sense.
Speidel, then , goes on talking about this surprising Gothic presence in Roman Army in early III century, and tries to read other ambiguous sources under this new point of view.
Now, I don't know if all the "final proofs" that Speidel offers are really such - but this all seems at least worth deeper studies.
Anyway,what is also extremely interesting is that Speidel concludes his article with these words:

" [...] the Gothi Gentiles may have gone back to their nation, or they may have become a regular unit such as the syrian Cohors Gotthorum or even the legio palatina of the Schytiae".

Quite interesting.
Would anyone need any more informations related to this article, just ask.
Valete

[Mithras]

Fascinating stuff, the evolution of Gothic federates ... I'd love to include the Cohors Gothorum in my list of 'maybes', and perhaps it did join the expedition. But when Ammianus mentions the Goths (after 363 I believe) it is in the context of 3,000 members and commanded by 'kings'. Definately not a standard Roman infantry cohort.

Did numeri have standard sizes? Or was that the point ... they were as big as the forces that composed them?

[Ti Cl Nero]

But when Ammianus mentions the Goths (after 363 I believe) it is in the context of 3,000 members and commanded by 'kings'. Definately not a standard Roman infantry cohort.

Correct. That's exactly what I (and Robert as well, I guess) meant a few posts ago - the 3000 Goths Ammianus mentions have quite probably to be referred to the treaty between Constantine e Goths: it was a contingent Goths had to supply to Romans upon request (details are still debated , but this seems to be the the right way of understanding it), which was formed up and supplied when needed; it was not a permanent unit related to Roman Army, and certainly had not the standard organization of a Roman unit.
So what Ammianus says makes perfectly sense and, by the way, doesn't exclude the possibility that a regular unit of Goths may have joined as well, though being a different issue.

Did numeri have standard sizes? Or was that the point ... they were as big as the forces that composed them?

Southern P., "The Numeri of the Roman Imperial Army", in Britannia 20, 1989): size seems to range , according to available sources, roughly between 100 and 1000, depending on the needs and the context.
The word "numerus" itself seems to have a general meaning of "unit", without deep standardization.
Vale

[Ti Cl Nero]

Salve,
I paid too little attention to that "after 363" which Mithras wrote in his previous message.
I guess (also from the details Mithras supplies), then, that this was a reference to Ammianus XXVI.10.3 ; here it is said that Goths sent 3000 troops as a support to the usurper Procopius, who unsuccessfully tried to throw Valens off (365-366AD).
Anyway this contingent has exactly the same meaning; the fact that Ammianus says, while talking of these Goths, that Procopius claimed to be relative of Costantine, as if he meant to explain in this way the reason of the supplying of Gothic troops, is considered an important evidence in order to confirm that this was done under the agreements of Costantine's treaty: Goths were bound to send a support upon request, and this was due to Procopius (as Constantine's relative), rather than Valens, which also makes perfectly sense considering how treaties worked.
Obviously strategic and politic contexts were much more complex and the real reasons of Gothic support to Procopius may be (probably they are) different, but the treaty offered a frame which made this support "legal".
Valete

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

Speidel mentions an identical designations (Gothi gentiles) for a unit in another inscription (CIL III 12483, Rumania), dated 337-340 AD - which again makes sense.

The full text:

Scythia Minor — Carcaliu — 337-340p. — CIL 3.12483

Imp[pp(eratores) Imperatores tres Caes(ares)] Fl(avius) Cl(audius) Constantinus Al[aman(icus) Max(imus), Goth(icus) Max(imus) et] Fl(avius) Iul(ius) Constantius Sarm(aticus) [Per]si[cu]s [Max(imus) et] [Fl(avius)] Iul(ius) Constans Sarm(aticus) pii, felices Aug(usti) locum in parte limitis positum gentilium Gotho[ru]m t[e]meritati semper aptissimum ad [co]nfirmandam provincialium [s]uorum [ae]ternam securitatem erecta istius fabr[ic]ae munitione clauserunt latru[nc]ulorumque impetum perennis mun[imi]nis dispositione tenuerunt adcurante Sappone v(iro) p(erfectissimo) duce limitis Scythiae.

Valete,

[Mithras]

Hah, that makes everything much clearer to me; I don't know much about the federation of Goths into the army. So, had Julian taken a numerus of Goths with him into Persia, it would almost certainly have been a different contingent than that which Procopius used. Very interesting. As a member of the Constantinian bloodline, can I assume that Julian had good claims when demanding the Goths provide him troops?

...the 3000 Goths Ammianus mentions have quite probably to be referred to the treaty between Constantine e Goths: it was a contingent Goths had to supply to Romans upon request (details are still debated , but this seems to be the the right way of understanding it), which was formed up and supplied when needed; it was not a permanent unit related to Roman Army, and certainly had not the standard organization of a Roman unit.

[Robert Vermaat]

As a member of the Constantinian bloodline, can I assume that Julian had good claims when demanding the Goths provide him troops?

You can - after Julian's death, Procopius (as last member of the Constantinian dynasty) usurped the throne. The Goths sent a large group of warriors to support him.
According the Kulikowsky, Constantine I beat them into a pulp to such an effect, that their loyalty never wavered after that, until his last descendant was gone.

[Ti Cl Nero]

So, had Julian taken a numerus of Goths with him into Persia, it would almost certainly have been a different contingent than that which Procopius used

I agree, contingents would be negotiated every single time.

Very interesting. As a member of the Constantinian bloodline, can I assume that Julian had good claims when demanding the Goths provide him troops?

May be this had its importancce; but I think Julian would anyway have had good claims when demanding support from Goths, just as roman leader enforced by the treaty
The treaty between Costantine and the Goths was effective since 332 until the new treaty between Valens and Athanaric in 369 (as a result of Valens’ gothic war) was signed.
Usually this kind of treaties were meant to be “person to personâ€