Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28

Thread: [Historiae] about Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Equites legionis and the Symmetrical System (3rd-6th cent. AD)

  1. #1
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default [Historiae] about Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Equites legionis and the Symmetrical System (3rd-6th cent. AD)







    Intro


    The underlying elaboration contains Hastati, Principes, Triarii and Legionary cavalry and the connection of the Promoti as well as the Symmetrical warfare.
    Well one can wonder at first how all this is connected. And yet one must state that all fits together - like a gear wheel the other.
    Just in the last few years, much of what Vegetius wrote has been partially confirmed - frequently during observance of Greek texts, or even by viewing of inscriptions and grave steles.
    The fundamental rejection of the writings of Vegetius will not bring us further in evaluating the Roman army of the third and fourth centuries.

    Another aspect of this elaboration is to explain the reader the system of Greek tactics. In particular, I noticed that it is very difficult for many people to interpret the military handbook - called Strategikon.
    Many do not recognize the connection to previous centuries. And for one or the other it is not explainable why the Roman army apparently changed "ad hoc" his strategy and the deployment of troops.

    But what if the military order of the Strategikon was already valid in the Roman Empire many centuries ago?
    What if the Strategikon offers no new disposition of troops? What do you say if the Strategikon want to draw attention to some news?

    And this is indeed the case here.

    Some things are certainly speculative and the elaboration has not the claim of infallibility. In many years of my research however many becomes plausible.

    Wish a nice reading
    Pompeius Magnus





    Triarii


    The threefold or 3-tier system composed by Hastati, Principes and Triarii of Vegetius.
    About what era or time frame he is speaking?

    It is unlikely in general that he personally was thinking about the old order of the Pseudo-Hyginus (~ early 2nd to early 3rd century). And this is also suggested because the commander of his "Ancient" Legion is called Praefectus legionis (II 9) - a typically 3rd office. Before it was the legatus legionis or legatus Augusti pro praetore - and Vegetius is never writing about them - therefore he describes very likely the Legion of the 3rd and 4th century.

    Also the described weaponry of the first lines (e.g. the wording of spears and swords) is completely referring to the mid-to-late 2nd and 3rd century.
    But let us first have a look about that what Vegetius reports about the 3 lines and their officers.

    EPITOMA REI MILITARIS LIBER II
    about the Legion of the Ancients.

    summarize all heavy troops:
    II. Quid inter legiones et auxilia intersit.
    [...]Legio autem propriis cohortibus plena cum grauem armaturam, hoc est principes hastatos triarios antesignanos, item leuem armaturam[...]

    about the Centurions of the First Cohors - the co called Primi Ordines
    VII. Nomina et gradus principiorum legionis
    [...]Triarius prior centum homines gubernabat.[...]

    about a third line (beside Hastati and Principes) called Triarii
    XVI. Quemadmodum triarii uel centuriones armentur.
    [...]Post omnes autem acies triarii cum scutis catafractis et galeis ocreati cum gladiis semispathiis plumbatis binis missibilibus locabantur, qui genu posito subsidebant[...]

    In the first moment now one could think that this order or wording is indeed referring to a much older time.

    However, according with the following sources it seems more than possible that Diocletian or Contantine tried to reestablish or keep this old office.
    Also the threefold or 3-tier system of Vegetius gets a certainty on view of inscriptions and a note by Ammianus.

    The sources:

    CIL V 896
    ~300AD
    Aurelius Iustinus eques e legione /
    XI Claudiae probatus annorum XVII et /
    militavit munifex annis VII eques /
    annis IIII militavit in cohorte /
    hastatu posteriore ex pluris /
    maecis derisus ipsius in ipso /
    titulo XCI


    AE 1981 777
    about Aurelius Gaius ~290-300AD
    [...]as a recruit served as a novice cavalryman, then as cavalry lance-bearer (lanciarius), orderly (optio) of a centurion of the third rank (de numero triarium)[...]


    Ammianus Liber XX 4
    18. [...] Petulantium tunc hastatus, abstractum sibi torquem, quo ut draconarius utebatur, capiti Iuliani inposuit confidenter, qui trusus ad necessitatem extremam iamque periculum praesens vitare non posse advertens, si reniti perseverasset, quinos omnibus aureos argentique singula pondo, promisit. [...]
    translation:
    [...]but who was then only one of the Hastati of the Petulantes, tore a chain off his own neck, which he wore in his quality of standard-bearer, and placed it boldly on Julian's head[...]


    Vegetius reports that every man in the first 5 Cohors was equipped now with 2 pila - but when he comes to the second line he just say that they (the soldiers) were equipped in a "similar way". Perhaps the lancea was still in use - at least an interesting note as suggested in Vegetius Liber III XIIII
    [...]Instructionis lex est, ut in primo exercitati et ueteres milites conlocentur, quos antea principes uocabant, in secundo ordine circumdati catafractis sagittarii et optimi milites cum spiculis uel lanceis ordinentur, quos prius hastatos uocabant. [...]

    According Arrianus (he describes the Legion of Hadrianus +/- 120/130AD/ see below) the soldiers had carried just one spear (kontos) in the meaning of the pilum - it was the weapon of the first rank.
    The rear rank of λογχοφόροι (and i want identify them with the lanciari; as correctly described by Phillip Rance ; the Fulcum p297) were equipped with the lancea.
    Arrianou ektaxis kata Alanon
    [...]pro ton akontiston tous hoplitas[...]
    [...]kai lonchas hoi lonchophoroi akontizetosan hoi te psiloi kai hoi thyreophoroi[...]




    The Battle Order of Vegetius gives us many information about the army of the transition periode of the early-to-mid 3rd century. In my opinion, and I have written down my reasons in the article, the Hyginic battle and camp order was still valid - at least to some degree - during the early 3rd century. After this time era we go into a transition periode inwhich many things changed. The idea that many Legions were splitted in detachments is just partially true (for the early-to-mid 3rd century!). Today we know that many units still returned.
    Therefore we can guess that the internal structure and the core of a Legion has not changed a lot. And indeed. The differences of the described Legio Antiqua of Vegetius are little in some aspects.
    The leader was now called Praefectus - gone is the Legatus Legionis. And indeed, since Gallienus and Aurelianus we have written evidences that the senatiroal class was removed from military services. Also the used weapons, as described by Vegetius, are basically those of the late 2nd and 3rd century.
    The most important aspect is that the complete fisrt row of Cohors are proclaimed to be Principes (Cohors I - V) - while the second row (Legio VI - X) are named as Hastati. But the 3-tier system of Principes, Hastati and Triarii was before just valid within the Cohors. The Cohors were composed by 6 Centuries, 2 of them named as Hastati, 2 were Principes and the remaining 2 were named as Triarii. This manipular system has probably not survived during the mid 3rd century. The Cohors of Vegetius are formed by 5 centuries - and all soldiers within this Cohors are classified now as Principes or Hastati. A system which perfectly suits the symmetrical warfare.


    A possible deployment of the First Cohort of Vegetius. It is of course possible that all centuries were deployed side by side and not in a row like shown on my schematic. See my schematic about the symmetrical order of the Legio Antiqua of Vegetius.


    A possible deployment of the Centuries of Vegetius - within a Cohors.
    It is of course possible that all centuries were deployed side by side and not in a row like shown on my schematic. See my schematic about the symmetrical order of the Legio Antiqua of Vegetius.





    equites legionis


    By the middle of the 1st century BC the legionary cavalry had dissappeared, and their place had been taken by various foreign auxillaries.
    An exception was an armed band of equites who was placed at the Curia to act as a guard. (Suetonius Iul 14 2). But this example can not be taken as an evidence that the legionary cavalry still survived.
    As part of the reorganisation of the army by Ocatvian Caesar the Legions were once again provided with a contingent of cavalry. The Legions would retain this cavalry contigent until the 3rd century - when the number and internal organisation was changed once more.
    From now on the legionary cavarlymen were drawn from the rank and file of the legiones themselves.

    The role of the legionary cavalry was underrated many years - but finally the reputation could be restored during the research of the last years - esp. due to the research of Speidel, Parker and Pavkovic.

    Breeze (1959, page 55) notes that they did form an active battlefield unit together with the auxilaries.
    To reduce their role to messengers only is misleading and mostly based on a description of Livius (37.7) in which th eyoung Tiberius Gracchus is sent by Sciptio to king Philip of Macedonia. This text was many times taken pars pro toto to declare legionary cavalry as not efficient and basically useless - also due to their small number.
    The service and duty as messenger was of course performed by the legionary cavalry. Nobody can deny that - however, their task was by far not reduced to that service only.
    It seems that the battlefield role of the legionary horsemen must be reevaluated: the equites legionis were elite troopers who probably formed the guard unit of the legionary Legate. (see Besnier 1899, page 236).
    And that they had an active role during battle is basically evidenced as well due to a series of tombstones evaluated by Schleiermacher (1984 pages 60-65) - showing equites legionis to be victorious in battle over a defeated enemy.
    Furthermore no fewer than 8 legionary horsemen were awarded various military decorations and one legionary horsemen is known to have been killed during battle.

    ILS 2307 (early 3rd century)
    [...]mater miserissima, Septimo Ingenuo equiti
    legionis XIII Geminae qui Partia sic decidit
    in bello, Septimo Iuliano equiti legionis XIIII[...]

    [...]most wrenched mother to Septimus Ingenuus,
    horseman of Legio XIII Gemina who was killed in war
    with Parthia, to Septimus Iulianus horseman of Legio XIIII.[...]

    According my last information the office of Decurio or squadrons of Turmae are basically not evidenced as mentioned by Vegetius during the latter periode of the 2nd and 3rd century.
    On the other side due to the Strategikon (see Book III) we know that the regular cavalry was led by Centurions (or ekatontarches).
    We have also an inscription of a Centurio of the Promoti, dated to 320AD
    [...]Valerius Aion, centurio of vexillatio of the equites promoti of legio II Traiana stationed under the praepositus Decentius in the village of Asphynis of the Latopolite nome[...]

    One interesting fact of the upper inscription is that the Promoti very obviously still connected to a special Legion. But I will detail that issue in the chapter obout the Promoti.
    The other interesting fact is, as mentioned above, that the leader of the unit was obviously a Centurion.

    Roman legionary cavalry was trained according to turmae (see Vegetius I 27), and even though the cavalry did not have formal turmae, they certainly had similar units.

    Regarding their equipment we owe several important images of reliefs and tomb stones. It is also important to mention that since the late antiquity or 3rd century several grave steles are showing cavalry without heavy mail - just an helmet and the sword is shown. But this doesn't mean that chain-mail or any other noteworthy protection was not worn anymore - or that the cavalry become more light in the late era. It is rather a change of art, the soldiers went to to the other side, to heaven, and want show himself as he was normally dressed when serving in the camp or during private business.

    There is also an interesting reference - adlocutio (ILS2487) - regaring the equipment and training of the legionary cavalry of legio III Augusta during a military exercise. Hadrian congratulates the legionary cavalry for the fine and succesfull performance. The soldiers hurled their spears while wearing armor of some type (ut loricati iaculationem perageratis). This exercise might be identified with the iaculatio petrina of Arrianus Taktika.

    About numbers:
    Polybius 6.25 1-2
    He described that each Turmae had 3 decurions - 1 Decurion for 10 men. The Legion had 10 Turmae - therefore the complete number was 300 cavalry-men.
    The number howver can vary from source to source:
    150 men: Livius 41.21.3
    200 men: Livius 40.18.6 and 44.21.6
    400 men: Livius 23.24.13

    Some sentences about the camps. I cannot write to much since this part was elaborated by many authors who have discovered many interesting issues during the last years.
    It is more than likely that for the cavalry a camp was built outside the main-legionary camp. Here we can specify at this point as a source the legionary camp of Lambaesis in Africa.
    In addition to this two smaller camps were found - and they could be assigned to the cavalry (the so called "Western camp" and "camp of 81").

    The fact that the described Legion of Vegetius had more than 720 men (132 cavalry for the 1st Legion and 66 each for the rest of all remaining 9 Cohors) we see that it was obviously required due to the crisis of the 3rd century and a naturally need of a mobile force to increase drastically the number of the equites legionis.
    As mobile cavalry and guard units some of them were detached from their mother Legion and sent elsewhere - some of them them - now called Promoti - never returned to their home.





    Kampidouktor


    By describing the infantry regiments it seems important to me to describe their leaders as well. The leader of an Infantry Arithmos/Numerus was for sure the Tribounos - an issue which was described by me in my previous elaborations.
    But what happened to the old Centurion/Kenturion or the Centenarius (ekakontarchos)?

    The campiductor was in regarding military effectiveness and prestige probably the real successor of the old centurion.
    He trained the recruits, he led the work camp, and had an important place in the battle line.

    Vegetius I 13
    [...]Praeterea illo exercitii genere, quod armaturam uocant et a campidoctoribus traditur[...]

    Vegetius II 23
    [...]
    Armaturam, quae festis diebus exhibetur in circo, non tantum armaturae, qui sub campidoctore sunt, sed omnes aequaliter contubernales cotidiana [...]

    Vegetius III 8
    [...]maiore cura ac labore firmantur. Nam singulae centuriae, diuidentibus campidoctoribus et principiis[...]

    Vegetius III 6
    [...]Praeponendi ergo sunt exercitatissimi campidoctores uicarii uel tribuni[...]


    Also in Ammianus we find this office

    Ammianus XIX 6
    12.
    [...]To their campidoctors, as champions of valiant actions, the emperor, after the fall of the city, ordered statues in armour to be erected at Edessa in a frequented spot. And those statues are preserved up to the present time unhurt.[...]

    [...]horum campidoctoribus ut fortium factorum antesignanis post civitatis excidium armatas statuas apud Edessam in regione celebri locari iusserat imperator, quae ad praesens servantur intactae. [...]

    Therefore they were very likely the most honoured officers of the tactical units. Also backuped by Vegetius - he named them together with the Tribuni. (see above Veg III 6; campidoctores uicarii uel tribuni).

    That they were a class of officers just one rank below the Tribuns is mentioned in Ammianus, when he describes a promotion of a Campiductor to a Tribune.
    Ammianus XV 3
    10.
    [...]Marinus, who from having been a campiductor had been promoted to a Tribune[...]

    [...]Marinus tribunus ex campidoctore eo tempore vacans[...]

    The office in general is known from the time when the Praetorians were still existing - esp under the reign of the Severian dynasty - where most of the following listed grave steles belonged to:

    See CIL VI 533
    Scupis quod cohortis doctor voverat nunc
    campidoctor cohortis I
    praetoriae Piae Vindicis somnio admonitus posuit libens) laetus

    CIL VI 2658
    Maximo campidoctore cohortis VII praetoriae secundus heres bene merenti fecit

    CIL VI 2697
    Dis Manibus
    Aurelius Eliaseir cohortis
    campidocor cohorte VIIII
    praetoria centuria Marci natione Pannonius qui
    vixit annos LX et militavit in legione
    annos X et in praetorio
    annos XXV

    The office thenceforth is evidenced due to the upper mentioned sources and furthermore during the time era of the 6th century and far beyond:

    CIL V 8773
    Arcam Vassioni campedoctori
    numeri Batavorum seniorum quem sepe
    livit coniux sua Andacca quae vixit cum
    eo annos XXII militavit annos XXXV feret
    apud se annos LX si quis eam arcam
    voluerit movere viribus fisci dabit solidos XXV

    CIL VIII 4354
    Imperatoribus dominis nostris Flavio Constantino et
    Anastasiae piissimis Augustis Vitalio et magnifico et inlustri magistro militum
    Africae auxiliante deo per Flavium Trigetium
    hic kastrum consentientes sibi cives istius loci
    providentia eius de suis propriis laboribo fecerunt
    Gudulo
    Ianuarius
    Felix Iulius
    Senior
    Victor M
    Faustinus
    Dominicus
    campidoctor

    and a kampidouktor from the reign from the year +/-500AD about Flavius Plutammon
    Papyrus CXIII 5A
    [...]
    Φλ Ώλουταμμωνί απο καμηουκτορων αριθμού των γενναίο
    τατων Ύρανστιγριτανων υιω του[...]

    kampidouktor of the Arithmos (Numerus) Transtigritanon


    Furthermore, and this is in my opinion the most important, the tactical order described in military manuals of the so called Strategikon of Maurice (probably written between 585 and 610AD) and the Taktika from Leo VI. (866 – 912AD) can be taken as one of the most important sources.
    It is true that the kentarchos (or ekakontarchos) is described in both manuals, however, since I have both version in greek language I was able to compare the real text with common english and german translations. My result concerning both military ranks regarding infantry is indeed disillusioning.

    While the title is mentioned several times in earlier chapters (e.g. Book III) - it is on the other hand completely missing in Book XII about infantry. And the earlier chapters are completely based on cavalry (except some exceptions regarding the baggage-train and the rear-guard).
    It is simply not true that the Centurion or kentarchos is mentioned in combination of the infantry Tagma.
    The Arithmoi are distributed to the individual Tagmas (modules). The commander of an infantry Tagma is the Tribune, followed by the campiduktor. Then immediately follow the Lochagoi or fileleaders.

    The office of the kentarchoi is just referring to cavalry, when a cavalry Bandon formed a cavalry-Tagma it was composed by 3 kentarchs - the senior kentarch was called Illiarchos (Strategikon Book III; see beginning of Book III and the following schematics; all listed soldiers are symbolized with the "K" - which means Kaballarioi = cavalry - also clearly described in the greek version of the Strategikon).

    The same is nearly valid to 95% for the Taktika. Even here the infantry Tagma is described in the same way like in the Strategikon and it's basically not worth to repeat those sentences - since all sentences are partically copied 1:1 from the Strategikon.

    A re-installation of the old office for the infantry appears in the Praecepta Militaria of Nikephoros Pholkas in the 11th century.
    Here it is explicit mentioned that they were the supervisors of 100 men - the campidouktor on the other hand dissappeared!
    But between the late 5th (even before) and 10th century the office was obviously gone - except for the marine-soldiers of the Dromons. The Taktika of Leo VI describes units of 100 Marines, serving on a Dromon or a group of Dromons, supervised by one Kenturion.

    In any case it is very possible that some of the older units, esp. those of the remaining static Legions of the group of Limitanei still held the office of the centenarii until the early 7th century. The Ursuper Phokas for example held the office of kentarchos when his uprising has begun - on the other hand I'm still not sure if he was probably a kentarchos of the cavalry - which seems to me more likely at the moment.
    (compare Theoph. Simokatta VIII 7,7) or Zonaras XIV 13

    Another indication for the dissappearance of the centenarii or ekakontarchoi is the fact that they are not mentioned in the books of Procopius or Ammianus!

    That the Campidoctor is not mentioned on the Slab of Perge should not lead to irritation - since most of the mentioned position of that slab are referring to titles of honour or ranks. As correctly written by Fatih Onur (Preliminary Report page 13) many other titles are hidden behind the Flaviales and Augustales.




    The system of Vegetius by putting the better veterans and better armed soldiers to the front (=Principes; see article) seems not impossible - since even the Strategikon highly suggests to deploy the senior ranked Skoutatoi in the front and the rest to the rear. If it's required to divide the Tagma you have automatically a second group with another 4 front ranked veteran soldiers.
    An important change is that I cannot find the centurion anymore (see article about the campidouktor).
    It is possible that old Legions still had centuries commanded by the old centurion or kentarchos - however, all new deployed Numeri had just the Tribounos and the Kampidouktor - who also acted as the Vicarios of the Tribune.

    The office of the centurion however survived within the cavalry. Here it is cleary displayed in the Strategikon that the kentarchos was still an important office by commanding 100 men.
    Also the Taktika of Leo VI followed the same rule: Kentarchs are just available to cavalry - infantry was commanded by the Tribune and Campiductor.

    With the Praecepta Militaria of Nikephoros Phokas we can observe that the kentarchos is commanding infantry again (the Kampidouktor on the other hand is removed!). But this is not valid before the 11th century.





    Symmetrical Warfare


    The symmetrical warfare - a Roman "Passion" inherited from the Ancient Greeks.

    the central tenet of the Strategikon details the symmetrical warfare.
    ὅ σύμμετρος στρατός - o summetros stratos

    Now, the term refers to an interlocking and organized body - referring to the "whole" - which is able to defeat enemies.
    The focus of the work is indeed on the organization of a pure
    Cavalry as I have shown in another elaboration about the Strategikon. Many times misleading about unit-names and its officers. The twelfth book however deals also with the special case of the "mixed deployment"of horsemen and foot soldiers and another list details the deployment of the regular army of foot soldiers and one cavalry contingent.

    The Legions of the Ancients (πολύανδροι λεγεῶνες) were deployed in rows or files of 16 men - formed by the heavy Skoutatoi.
    A Tagma was composed by 256 men.
    64 of those Tagmata were 16.346 strong - divided in 4 divisions (μέρη).
    Considering that a file was composed by 16 soldiers we have 1024 files for the whole army.
    Furthermore 8000 light infantry (e.g. Archers and Javeliners) divided by 4 as well and 10.000 cavalry - divided by 2 regiments.
    The army consisted therefore of 34.000 men.



    The Symmetrical Battle Order of the Ancients
    But the Strategikon is not referring to the battle order of ancient greeks or macedonians - as some people try to imply.
    Of course, the symmetrical system was developed originally by the ancient greek tacticians - and then finally it was known and even used in the roman battle order of the early imperial time (see Arrianus).
    The Strategikon however refers clearly to the Legeones or katalogou tis Skoutatoi - which means the same.
    The term katalogos is in general a term used by purists - meaning a battle order, mostly referred to Legions. It is however not a official unit name or an official description of a tactical unit. Procopius and Agathias are sometimes using those terms to describe Legions. But even in their time perode the term "Arithmos" was the only official descriptions for tactical units.
    So, concerning the upper schematic the Romans had deployed their units into 4 equal Mere. The Psiloi are numbered - depending on the strength of infantry - composed by 50% or at least 33% - opposed to the number of regular infanty.


    The following text of the Strategikon becomes concretely in terms of its own era.
    Now the units are different in size - and therefore the old system is not applicable anymore.
    Obviously this is an indication that old and new units in the Roman Empire still coexisted.

    However, the Strategikon warns that a symmetrical army is still highly necessary (ibid VIII 2).
    It is explained that the commander should collect all available units (ἀριθμοί = Arithmoi = Numeri) and put them together (no consideration whether the soldiers of the original units stay together or not) - to form a temporarilly new battle-field order of units 16 deep (one file = 16). The length of the battle field order depends on the total number of available soldiers. The remaining soldiers - not matching the symmetrical system - will be send to the rear to form the rear guard or reserve.
    If the army is less than 24.000 strong (=16.000 Skoutatoi and 8.000 light armed) then the Strategikon suggests to form just 3 parts/division (= μέρη) instead of 4 divisions.

    If the army is bigger then the rest of the soldiers should join the light armed soldiers (Psiloi). In this case the 4 heavy divisions should never contain more 16.000 soldiers.
    A number which is also defined by Arrianus, some centuries before! Later more about this.

    As a result one can say that the internal organization of the single Arithmoi and Bandoi (when deployed on battle field named as Tagmata) was not important anymore.
    From now on, it was much more important to integrate the existing units in a fixed order of battle.
    Compared to Arrianus the battle-field-order (so the components or modules) was not deployed by units anymore - now it was deployed by "parts". Those parts were ad-hoc created Tagmata (singular = Tagma). Those Tagmata were disbanded after the battle and returned to their original standard or unit.

    The dilectus of the roman army during the earlier era was formed by fixed and permanent modules called "Legion". Since the 3rd century we see that the operational units became smaller and smaller - however, this is not important to judge the complete system. All those smaller units (detachments, vexillations etc) were drawn before the battle and deployed to a bigger "element" during the battle.



    Plate A


    Plate B

    Both plates are basically follwowing one and the same strategy. Both versions try to form the symmetrical order - however, there is an important difference.
    In Plate A you see that the single Arithmoi (new deployed Numeri, old Legions or Cohors etc) are pressed into modules (Tagmatas) for forming the Mere. The problem of this formation is that soldiers of different units are fighting in the same Tagma. This could lead to irritations for the soldiers. The Strategikon clearly say that it's not forbidden to deploy the units like this. But since all infantry units have different numbers (in the words of the Strategikon) it is better to use a variable system of the symmetrical battle order.
    And that leads us to Plate B.
    The Strategikon orders to keep the file-number constant at 16 men (from top to the rear-rank). The length of the unit is now variable. So, a Tagma may have so many files as you like. Considering that the banner or the flag and the Kapidouktor stands in the middle of a Tagma - you can have 10 files to the right and 10 to the left - or even 15 or more if needed.
    If a military unit is so big that the length of the Tagma becomes too long - then the Strategikon advise to form 2 Tagmata out of this single unit (see Plate B: the example of the Numerii IIII + VI shows that those units are too big to form a single Tagma. Therefore the soldiers are put into 2 units; coloured with blue and white).

    Valid for both systems is that all soldiers who are not needed are used to form a rear-guard. Let's say you have 21 soldiers left. Now you can form one remaining file with 16 men and add them to the Tagma. Now you have 5 men left (21-16=5). 5 men are of course not enough to form a file of 16. Insofar they are send to the rear - behind the light Psiloi - to form the rear-guard.




    The example shows a formation without regard to normal conditions. It blindly follows the symmetrical order - no matter where the units of the first cohort (or one of the others) stood normally.
    The single Centuries of the cohorts are still clearly visible - but all the units blend into the Greco-Tactical system - the soldiers are deployed in files of 16 or 8.
    They are now just modules or building blocks, bricks if you like - parts of a superordinated battle-order.
    It applies only to achieve this order - no matter how the individual elements must be divided.
    All in all we see here the rise of a so-called Meros - numbering 4000-6000.
    Due to my limited space on this reconstruction I was only able to show the right side of the battle order - or Mere.





    Hyginus


    The Camp and Army Formation of the so called Pseudo-Hyginus
    (covering the era until the reign of Marcus Aurelius or Lucius Verus - probably of the early 3rd century as well)

    The historian Jörg Scheuerbrandt say Whether the base-camp of Hyginus and his description of an army was an existing exercitus in the reality, or whether it comes from known components of any army put together, is to assess the same matter.
    The declaration addressed to the Emperor had of course the claim to be taken seriously, and must therefore also be useful and at least theoretically applicable under real conditions.

    The army of the so called Pseudo Hyginus is surprinsingly similar to that what is described in the Strategikon.
    The 3 Legions numbering 15840 together have another 1600 men of a Vexillation MDC. However, in another chapter 5 of the Hyginus we read that those 1600 men were detached from the named 3 Legions and should not be used for the battle-line. Furthermore we have 4 independent Cohors providing the light armed service - 7540 men altogether. Furthermore 7460 cavalry (including the praetoriani, the Alae and the Equites from the mentioned independent Cohors).
    That means a battle order in the way like detailed in the Strategikon is possible.





    Arrianus and "his" order


    Lucius Flavius Arrianus 'Xenophon' (ca. AD 86 - 160)

    Arrianus and his:
    ἔκταξις κατ᾽ Ἀλανῶν

    The Legions are always named with Phalanx (φάλαγξ) - and can be identified by the given numbers, not by the names of those units. The soldiers serving in those units are called Hoplites (ὁπλῖται).
    legio XV Apollinaris – ἡ πεντεκαιδεκάτη φάλαγξ (fifteenths Phalanx) - 5280 strong
    legio XII Fulminata – ἡ δωδεκάτη φάλαγξ (twelfth Phalanx) - 1760 strong

    The Alae are named with εἴλη - 2000 strong
    The Cohors are named with a personalized name. (1060 heavy armed, 1900 javeliners, 1420 archers, 600 cavalry, 720 mounted archers)

    If we add the soldiers of boths Legions and the auxillaries together we come to following numbers regarding the complete army:
    8200 heavy armed soldiers
    3200 light armed soldiers
    3320 cavalry

    Considering the fact that the Strategikon (XII B 14 and 15) suggests a file-strength of just 8 soldiers if the army is smaller than wished we come to the result that 1025 files/λόχοι are available (1 more than needed) - and this means we get finally our 64 parts/modules/components respectively our 64 Tagmatas.
    The ratio of heavy and light armed soldiers is round about 1:2 - and therefore matching the Strategikon once more (ibid XII B 8 and 9).

    Arrianus needs for the deployment of the Legio XV exactly 6 χιλίαρχοι (Chilliarchs) - and as we know all Legions had 6 Tribuni. Obviously the tactical usage of single Cohors was not important for him. It seems more likely that units of 1000 men were put together, at leaast ad-hoc, to form the battle order.


    Arrianus describes 2 possible battle orders for the same army.
    The Roman one - and the deployment according the ancient Taktika.
    The upper shown order is a common known one. Beside the 2 smaller auxillary-groups on the left and right side - we see that the center is composed by Legio XII and XV.
    The center right is bigger because the Legio XV was deployed by its full strength. The center left side is smaller because the Legio XII arrived to the battle with just ~2500 men (see my article).
    However, Arrianus suggests to deploy the troops as shown in my lower example. By dividing the Legions by 4 parts (Mere), furthermore sub-divided by an equal number of modules, parts or Tagmata as it is called correctly. The auxillary Cohors are acting as a flank-guard and have no tactical importance.

    Behind this technical modules we can read in Arrianus' Etaxis the real names behind this - or better said we are able to identify them.
    The units are called:
    Pentekaidekate Phalages = the 15th Phalanx = Legio XV Apollinaris
    Dodekate Phalages = the 12th Phalanx = Legio XII Fulminata
    tes Phalaggos Ippeis = the cavalry from the Phalanx = Equites Legionis
    Ippotoxatoi tous Petraious = the horsearchers of Petraeorum = Equites Coh. III Petraeorum sagitarii mil. eq.
    and so on....





    Aurelianus


    Zosimus describes the expeditionary army of Aurelian before the battle against the Palmyrene army.
    The only technical term for a unit he calls is the τέλος. In the strategy works of the ancients, this term only applies to units 2,000-strong (about light infantry and Cavalry).
    If we take the four τέλη we are now able to calculate the number of the four φάλαγγες. All greek tactical manuals are calculating the number of Pslioi between 33% or 50%. We see an army of 4 Legions, ergo 4 Mere. That means the numbers are so big that we can of course calculate with the 50%. In this case we come to a number of 4000 for one Legion. A number which is not impossible.
    Zosimus is of course a reliable source by a closer check of the troop names (even if the greek terms are used). All of them are coming from the area of Illyria and Pannonia. And indeed - if we compare the list of the Notitia Dignitatum we see immediately that a good proportion of those victiorious troops were garrisoned there after the war was won.

    By the way, the use of Asian τέλη (ther 4 auxilary Cohors) is described as light-armed troops by Zosimus - they attack the Palmyrene armored horsemen with flails.








    and


    Promoti


    With the complicated situation and the crisis of the 3rd century the cavarly forces were drastically increased as mentioned by Vegetius. But he is of course not the only source we have - describing the important new role of the cavarly.

    The first indication of a combined huge force of cavalry is given during the reigns of Gallienus and Aurelian.
    According Zosimus (I 40,1) and Zonaras (XII 25) the cavalry army was based around Mediolanum.
    The core of my research now: was it really just cavalry - or even mainly composed by infantry - everything based on a translation-mistake (or interpretation of the mentioned historians. This item was occasionally asked by Thorsten Hübner and Markus Junkelmann (insofar I'm not the first one who doubt it) - however, the research was not brought to an end. The Thesis was left unresolved.
    What if the latin word "Vexillatio" was wrongly translated?
    Since the 4th century a Vexillation was referred to cavalry only. But in the 3rd century it was mainly formed by infantry and sometimes by cavalry as well.

    CIL XII 2228
    tribuniciae potestatis II consuli patri patriae proconsuli vexillationes adque equites itemque praepositi et ducenarii protectores tendentes in Narbonensi provincia sub cura Iuli Placidiani viri perfectissimi praefecti vigilum devoti numini maiestatique eius
    Note = vexillationes adque equites = Vexillationes AND Equites

    During a time of continous changings nothings happens ad-hoc. It was however a flowing process which lasted at least until the reign of Constantine (conerning the inner order of Limitanei and Comitatenses probably until the 350s or 360s).
    The last inscription about pure legionary cavalry is noted from the year 240AD (CIL III 4289) or in 269AD. That's at least my information at the moment - but the date as well as the inscription could wrong and will be checked by myself once more.

    Most historical discussion are basically still based (even in modern literature) on the results of Theodor Mommsen (Militärwesen pages 210-220) - who claimed that with the introduction of a mobile cavalry force of Gallienus and the accompanied title of ippou egoumenon (the leader of cavalry) the legionary cavalry has declined and was shortly after gone. This is of course highly debatable.
    As shown by the upper example a Vexiallation of the 3rd century mostly referred to infantry. What if the title "ippou egoumenon" was originally "Dux totius Vexillorum" or just "Dux Vexillorum"?

    In this case the officer of Gallienus - commander Aureolus - was just the leader of the italian and Pannonian troops. This is also underlined by the fact that the army who attacked Aurelous at Mediolanum was also strongly composed by cavalry - therefore Aurelous was for sure not the commander of all cavalry.

    Anyway.
    The equites Promoti existed in 2 distinct contexts, for example those who remained true legionary cavalry attached to their parent unit and those who formed independent regiments.
    There is some indication that most of the cavalry regiments were send home during the reign of Diocletian - since it was this emperor who deployed once more full Legions of probably round about 4000-6100 men. In general it was this emperor who reinforced the frontier Legions - much later categorized as Limitanei.
    However, during the reign of Contantine we can observe that more and more units were detached - probably forever.

    One of the last attested sources for legionary horsemen dates from the year 320AD - and probably they survived much longer - perhaps under another name.
    source number missing
    Valerius Aion, centurion of vexiallatio of the equites promoti of legio II Traiana

    That leads me to the question of the so called Veredarii. Pannonian Veredarii appear in the middle of the 2nd century.
    One suggestion is that the 800 Pannonii veredarii are actualy the horseman of the 3 Pannonian Legions in the army described by Hyginus. This would explain why Hyginus does not mention the equites legionis.

    Veredarii are attested since the 2nd century as messengers and post-riders - also used in the context of a hunter
    Mart. 12,14,1
    parcius utaris moneo rapiente veredo

    Therefore Veredarii were just people who "used" horses. Since the early periode of the late antiquity we are however able to set those Veredarii into the context of messengers.
    Interesting enough is a note of Paulinus of Nola about the (foot!) messenger Paulin.
    Ep. 28,1 (CSEL 29 241)
    Victor epistolarum veredarius pedes aut veredarius bipes.

    Furthermore the tales about agentes in rebus (ibid 17,18)
    eos enim quos nunc agentes in rebus vel veredarios appellant.

    However, since the late 2nd century we have more than one indication that those Veredarii were also used and named in the army and this leads to the assumption that their services were probably not so peaceful and pacifistic as general claimed.
    Ps.-Hypin de mun.castr. 24 and 30 (edition Lenoir)

    138 and 140 AD
    CIL III 13795 = ILS 8909
    numerus burgariorum et veredariorum Daciae inferioris sub
    Flavio Constante procuratore Augusti

    and CIL III 13796 = ILS 9180
    castra numerus burgariorum et veredariorum quod anguste
    tenderet duplicato valli pede et inpositis turribus ampliavit
    per Aquilam Fidum procuratorem Augusti

    ...both of the upper 2 sources define the task of those Veredarii as a tower/watch-service at the Limes/frontier as well as the service as messenger and very possible as an hunter against warbands and intruders.
    Their classification or organisation as Numerus of the 2nd century AD shows that this unit had possibly a barbarian background - they were auxillaries.

    The most surprinsing indication I found is that a kind of legionary cavalry survived into the 6th century. The inscription of Perge has shown two positions of Veredarii and Veredarii alii (others). A term which normally means (as noted above) fast hunting horse.

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Perge Slab

    Due to the bad resolution of the picture I'm not able to identify 100% the number - but it clearly shows 2 greek letters - that suggest more than 100 men, at least this is for sure. After changing the colour information of the dedicated part I was able to identify the number 800. A number which is matching the number of the 3rd century (800 men) - not far away from Vegetius' numbers of round about 720 men. It is doubtful that more than 800 cavalry-men were still fixed attached to infantry (and I personally don't believe that this was before the case during the 2nd or 3rd century) - however, it is also possible that regular roman cavalry was at least logistically attached to a mother legion - even if the main camp of the infantry stood in another district or area.

    Another indication for legionary cavalry is an inscription of a cavalry from a numerus lanciariorum dated to the late 3rd or even 4th century
    aeques ex numero laciariorum serving in an ischola aequitum
    probably a trooper from an ad hoc unit of laciarii of the Danube Legions
    see Hoffmann 1967 pages 218-222


    By elaborating and balancing the upper mentioned facts and sources it is more than likely that a good proportion (if not the majority) had still a strong administrative bond to its mother Legion.
    (...)The horsemen would thus only be described in terms other than by the designation of their Legion when they had left the province in which the infantry was stationed.(...)
    Pavcovic page 109
    see Speidel 1984c page 137
    Furthermore Pavcovic explains very convincing that those units mentioned in the Notitia are just units which were really independent or permanently detached from its base - serving in another province.
    Ergo: cavalry still administratively attached to a Legion is probably not listed in the Notitia Dignitatum!

    A Papyrus from 300AD records the salaries and donatives paid to various troops. Including the equites promoti of Legio II Traiana.
    A.H.M. Jones has calculated the number of cavalry - compared to the given donatives - to 149
    Jones 1986 page 1257 and on

    The number of independent Promoti units on the contrary is completely unknown. It is possible that they had the same strength like the Vexillations of the 4th century - that is 500 men. Based on a comment of Lydus de mag. I.46

    It is also possible that an independent unit of Promoti was formed by cavalry detachments of several Legions - cavalry which had the same weapon specification. The equites promoti clibanarii known from the Notitia Dignitatum (probably 350-500 strong) was therefore - following this theory - created by taking all Legionary Cataphracts from the same region or province.
    This procedure of combining troops of the same cavalry-specialists was also evidently perfomed in earlier times as well.
    We can take the example of the Flavian time era and an inscription ILS 9168 from the Vexillatio sagittariorum exercitus Syriaci - a unit which combined the mounted archers of Syria.

    Vegetius classified the units of legionary cavalry as loricati (for the first Cohors), armoured, and contarii (spear-bearers for the 2nd to 10th Cohors).
    However, the loricati are also named by Vegetius (in another chapter) as contati. Therefore the term loricati seems more a technical one.
    (see Veg 3 16 and 3 17).
    Since all roman horsemen had a kind of body protection, and to a certain degree a mail as well it is plausible that Vegetius refers the legionary cavalry named as loricati to a special group - a kind of elite. Years later we would call them Cataphracti. The rest of the legionary cavalry (9 x 66 men) of Vegetius` antiqua legio are therefore mounted lancers - of course protected with a chain-mail as well.
    That a kind of Promoti cataphracts were existing is indeed evidenced by the Notitia Dignitatum - which names such a unit (ND Or 7.31)

    The roman cavarly itself had just 2 noteworthy components: regulars and cataphracts. The following years would bring another group on the desk: the mounted archers.
    This 3-tier system is still valid in the Strategikon, Taktika of Leo VI as well as the Praecepta Militaria of Nikephoros Phokas (PM) and the Taktika of Nikephoros Ouranos (TNO) in the 11th century.

    We have also some indication according the Papyrus Columbia 7.188 from the year 320AD about the equipment of a Centurion from our Promoti - legionary cavalry respectively.
    The list includes a shield, breastplate, 2 axes and a contus or hasta.

    According the inscription AE 1907 143 - the commander of the legionary cavarly or that of the independent Promoti was obviously the Tribune.

    Some doubts remain however, since the upper shown inscription refers to a unit which derived most probably from the old praetorian cavalry - since our unit is now called equites promoti dominorum nostrorum.

    Another attested rank of an overall commander of legionary cavalry is that of the praepositi
    ------------source

    The other commanders of the groups or files are described well by Pavcovic in his phantastic elaboration. The Centurion is evidenced on several inscriptions. Basically not noteworthy to go into detail since this office is attested for cavalry in the Strategikon as well as Taktika and far beyond. (see my other chapters)

    ------------source
    it shows that even an officer called Ducenarius was commanding a group of cavalry. Vegetius told us (see Veg 2 8) that this officer commanded 200 men.

    That the round about 720 men cavalry of Vegetius are probably Alae, as discussed by Pavcovic or Speidel, is in my opinion doubtful since Vegetius differs very clear between allied contingents and the troops of the Romans - as the mentioned modern authors have recognized by themself. Insofar I'm not the first one.
    It seems therefore more likely to me that the paper-strength of cavalry was increased due to the 3rd century crisis. During the early and mid imperial periode we can observe a flowing process of an increased number of cavalry. Josephus gives a number of 120, Hyginus of 265 and Vegetius of 726. On the other hand I must say again that the late cavalry was probably not really attached and encamped with the Legion. It was more likely just an administrative connection and the troops had their camp at another location - as observed in my sub-chapter about legionary cavalry (see above).


    The plate shows a possible detachment of the legionary cavalry of the years 260 AD and beyond.
    If we suggest that many vexillations in the 3rd century returned to their mother legion we might suggest also that in the 4th century many vexillations became independend units - even stationed far away from their original area of deployment.
    If we consider that many - if not all - of the legionary cavalry was always garrisoned in their own camps - some miles away from their mother legion - it is not difficult to remove or dislocate them - since their connection to the mother Legion was very likely just an administrative one.
    We have no indication that a Legionary Cohors, fighting in a battle, had a direct contact or any kind or supervising role to cavalry. The cavalry was basically always fighting by themself.
    Following my article you see that we have at least some important indication that Legions of the 4th, 5th and even 6th century had a proportion of legionary cavalry left - at least for some units or old styled Legions - numbering still round about 2000 or more.





    ---content not finished---



    Conclusion


    The legionaries were not prepared in accordance with cohorts, but divided into ad hoc groups and were led by the χιλίαρχαι - or the tribuni militum. A bold sentence - but all authors give us the possiblity to decide by ourself - and indeed, in many cases we can observe that this system was used - either directly and obvious - or indirectly.

    Hence it follows that Arrian's exercitus is deployed by the rules as described by the ancient tacticians.
    The ancient historians are also using the numbers and conditions as given by the tacticians (ancient greek writers describing the greek military system).
    The system is evidenced and can be understood as a real military deployment since the late Flavian time era.
    Flavius ​​Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius deliver such units, especially strengths of 1,000 and 2,000 men are called.

    Therefore the number for the New-Legions (new deployed Legions of the 4th century) are the possible result of those developments. It seems absolutely plausible to me that a new deployed unit was not exceeding the number of 1000 or 2000 - simply that it fits the graeco-roman tactical system.

    To built up a battle field order was always following the same scheme
    1.000 legionarii 1/6 legio χιλιαρχία
    2.000 legionarii 1/3 legio μεραρχία
    4.000 legionarii 2/3 legio φάλαγξ
    8.000 legionarii 4/3 legio διφαλαγγία
    12.000 legionarii 2 legiones

    And finally we know that the real tactical battle field order was basically always the χιλιαρχία and the μεραρχία.

    The last time that single Cohorts are described to act independently as a tactical unit is in the year 15 AD when Caecina marched with 40 Cohorts through the area of the Bructeri or Boructuarii.
    Tacitus ann. 1 60

    In the following period only whole legions or a specified number of milites have been mobilized. Such detachments are documented in the literature as vexillatio or numeri delectorum, electi or other similar descriptions.

    Vexillations seem to have had a nominal strength of 1,000 soldiers in combat. A frequently occurring detachment-size of 2,000 soldiers per Legion is reported also. It also occurs that vexillarii of two different Legions were put together to form a Vexiallatio of 1,000 milites.
    Tacitus ann. XIV 38 1
    Tacitus, hist. IV 35

    During the jewish wars Cestius Gallus mobilized the Legio XII Fulminata and several vexillations as well as six cohorts. Vespasian however mobilized three legions and 18 cohorts.
    Therefore my suspicion might be correct that the Cohors were just administrative units in those Vexiallations - or it is more than possible that they disappeared. Especially in the case of new deployed 1000 or 2000-men Legions, the so called New-Legion, there is absolutely no indication about a cohortal system. It it seems that the units were just sub-divided by the Centuries - and even this thesis stands to disposition - since the kentarchos or centurion is not mentioned anymore for new deployed smaller units - at least during the late 5th and 6th century.
    It is the Campidoctor who shall apply synonymous for a the beginning of a new era.
    The era of smaller units - fitting into the symmetrical system.





    Credits


    The present elaboration, and all graphics were produced independently.
    Therefore, the copyright of the displayed images and grafics belongs with the creator and the team of Ages of Darkness.
    The approval for publication and presentation to or for other Internet sites can be granted. A written request is required in every case.

    Last edited by Pompeius Magnus; February 02, 2012 at 02:11 AM.

  2. #2
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: [Historiae] about Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Equites legionis and the Symmetrical System (3rd-6th cent. AD)

    so, it's done so far.
    Missing are some sources (just very few). At the moment I'm a little bit lazy to look for them. But I will make it the next time. This happenes if I write down core sentences out of my books on a paper without a hint of the page :-(

    I wish a nice reading and hope that everybody enjoys the text and the new schematics.

    thread opened

  3. #3
    Constantius's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    England-Londinivm
    Posts
    3,383

    Default Re: [Historiae] about Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Equites legionis and the Symmetrical System (3rd-6th cent. AD)

    Excellent PM, the same thing happened to me wrote an essay for university forgot to write down a few of my sources -took me ages to find them for the bibliography


    Signature made by Joar


  4. #4
    demagogos nicator's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    2,418

    Default Re: [Historiae] about Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Equites legionis and the Symmetrical System (3rd-6th cent. AD)

    Great job, you have provided us with plenty of interesting material to read containing very precious knowelage. That will help us to shorten our wainting time untill the relaese of AoDII

  5. #5
    Blatta Optima Maxima's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Free Democratic People's Republic of Latvia
    Posts
    10,738

    Default Re: [Historiae] about Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Equites legionis and the Symmetrical System (3rd-6th cent. AD)

    This is indeed very interesting.

  6. #6
    Deutschland's Avatar East of Rome Mod Leader
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Leipzig, Germany
    Posts
    2,025

    Default Re: [Historiae] about Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Equites legionis and the Symmetrical System (3rd-6th cent. AD)

    Interesting read

  7. #7
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: [Historiae] about Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Equites legionis and the Symmetrical System (3rd-6th cent. AD)

    Many thanks for the positive comments.
    And as said, if a question occurs or if something is not so clear please tell me.
    The elaboration gives of course some space for an own interpretation. And this is wished from my side - simply because it isn't possible to give a statement like "that was so".
    Last edited by Pompeius Magnus; January 22, 2012 at 05:59 PM.

  8. #8
    tomySVK's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    1,838

    Default Re: [Historiae] about Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Equites legionis and the Symmetrical System (3rd-6th cent. AD)

    It seems like a great article, I´m looking forward to read it during weekend. Thank you Pompeius.

  9. #9
    Diocle's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Amon Amarth
    Posts
    12,572

    Default Re: [Historiae] about Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Equites legionis and the Symmetrical System (3rd-6th cent. AD)

    question: The transformations of the military structures of the Roman army, were also corresponding to social and economical changes, ?

  10. #10
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: [Historiae] about Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Equites legionis and the Symmetrical System (3rd-6th cent. AD)

    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    My great difficulty understanding the transition from the Roman Imperial Legion to the Late Roman Legion and finally to the Byzantine/East Roman Strategikon like organization, was the disappearance of the cohort, as main tactical subdivision of the army.
    Now you overturn the problem and solve it, the cohort was more an administrative structure for the army, which in the field continued to use the symmetrical system with a great continuity, now we can see the development from the Imperial Legion (and earlier hastati, princeps, triarii) until the times of Strategikon and after, like a linear continuity! Great explanation, interesting and also if I can use this word, quite 'elegant' and rational solution! Magnificent work Pompeius!

    Only one, maybe silly, question: The transformations of the military structures of the Roman army, were also corresponding to social and economical changes, like the reduction of the role in the army of the senatorial aristocracy, and the incrising role of the new emergent class of the equites in the command structure, like the citizenship extended to the entire empire, like the presence of 'barbarian' troops in the army no more like foederati but like citizen and officers and many other, but here in your very interesting syntesis, to these breaking points and trasformations corresponds a great continuity, the Empire changed, but the military system maintained the same symmetrical ancient structure, like a form of 'long duration history' (French History School of Annales), the world changed but the Greek-Roman Military Tradition remained the same trought....how many centuries? ten,..eleven? I find this suggestion very fascinating but also strange, but in the end we should consider that the technology and the rural economy based on slavery remained the same in great part of this timeframe.

    I stop me here i do not want to occupy too much space with my observations, anyway great work, very interesting reading and mainly a reading which shakes the certainties aquired that is always a very, very good operation! Again, thanks Pompeius.

    Almost forgetting: with great happiness................+ rep!
    Hi Diocle.
    WOW: First of all thank you very much for the positive feedback and your question.
    By trying to answer your questions I want give a view first of that what my reasearch has taken to daylight during the last years.

    The Legions were at any time a quite homogeneous and closed institution.
    Therefore I'm not sure if THE barbarization had such an impact during the 3rd and 4th century - leading in a complete new military system.

    Alexander Demandt paints a grim picture of the Roman units. Barbaric soldiers appear to the service within the roman army when they want. When a barbarian did not appear for duty, he was able to send a substitute etc etc.
    He fails however to differ between the different time epochs of the late antiquity - which lasted some hundred years as we know.

    Furthermore I cannot see any kind of noteworthy change within the army due to the barbarians.
    The Western Roman Empire had of course some trouble to fill the ranks with new recruits. And it is also true that more and more so called barbarians were taken into the regular army for compensating the needed man-power.
    Furthermore the described abuses from Alexander Demandt are true as well.
    However, that was not before the reign of Theodosius the Great - or better said after his death. And in this case it is also true that the East Roman Empire cleaned up the complete army from any foreign element as a reaction of the happenings of the last 100 years. That's also the reason why we can absolutely be sure that during the reign of Anastasius and Justinian in the 6th century (!) the Roman army was still were Roman.
    Egyptian Papyri of the late 5th and 6th century are giving us a quite clear view about the internal organisation of the roman Numeri - and 90% of the given names of soldiers are Graeco-Roman ones.

    As described in another older thread - the mental mistake many people are making is to define just the Legion as a typically roman military unit (actually it was just an administrative body - but that's another story). Since the mid-to-late 4th century we can observe the stepwise introduction of a new typically tactical unit: the Numerus.
    Somewhere during the 5th century we have no indication anymore about any new deployed Legions - on the other hand we have many indication about new deplyoed roman units called Numeri (probably 500 or 520 strong).
    And this kind of tactical body is taken as a basic-unit in the Strategikon in the Book 12 and it was valid at least until the 11th century - since it is described by Leo VI in his Taktika (named in greek Arithmos).

    Finally I made my own researches by observing primary sources (esp. by taking the latin or greek originals) - however, of course I try to evaluate the works of authors as well. Insofar I was a little bit surprised that esp. Yann Le Bohec comes to some results which are covering my own studies regarding the general organisation of the army (I have also to critizise other elements of his work, but that's another story).

    Yann Le Bohec comes to the result that in fact the border Legions (much later classified as Limitanei) were still the Main-Army of the empire. And this is probably valid until the mid of the 4th century. This would also explain why the term "Limitanei" appears very late round about 363 or 365 AD in the edict-collection of Theodosius.
    Therefore I'm meanwhile also not sure anymore if there was really a kind of "reform".
    For me it seems more plausible that Diocletian followed the Agenda "back-to-the-roots". Even the cavalry was still closely connected to its mother Legions or units (independently if it was an Ala or the Promoti = legionary
    cavalry/ as described in post#1 of my work).
    And now it makes sense that Vegetius described the Legio Antiqua as a body of round about 6000 men.

    Now everybody could ask the fair question about the Comitatenses. They are called more early in history. Long time before the Limitanei. And yes, that's of course true.
    Well, the term Comitatenses was just a classification of normal legionaries.
    Obviously all emperors or important generals thought that it is a good idea to elect some nice troops for their personal guard as a kind of royal retainers. It is also noteworthy that their original name was Sacro Comitatu = the holy or anointed followers.

    Here is an inscription of 302AD - the era of Diocletian.
    CIL III 6194
    [...]Valerio Thiumpo qui militavit in legione XI Claudia lectus in sacro
    comitatu
    lanciarius, deinde protexit annis V, missus, praefectus legionis
    II Herculiae egit annis II semisse et decessit, vixit annis XXXXV, mensibus
    III diebus XI [...]

    It seems that until the early 4th century the Comitatenses were few. Their real classification was Sacro Comitatu (at least until 302AD/ see above) and they were probably something like a couter-element to the Praetorians.
    That they formed "per se" a regional field army as described many times in modern works - is according my research not evidenced.

    After many years the size of the Comitatus was increased drastically. And now the high-command of the Romans saw a need for a new classification and differentiation.
    Now the term Limitanei was introduced officially because the Comitatenes (as they were called now) were enough regarding their strength to perfom campaigns just with the Comitatus - and now the regional field armies were created. That was (but this is debatable) not before 350s or even some years later. And this leads me to the result that Limitanei were not Militias or Farmer-soldiers or "per se" static troops during the first 60 years of the 4th century.
    Last edited by Pompeius Magnus; September 05, 2012 at 07:08 PM.

  11. #11
    Diocle's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Amon Amarth
    Posts
    12,572

    Default Re: [Historiae] about Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Equites legionis and the Symmetrical System (3rd-6th cent. AD)

    Thanks

  12. #12
    SeniorBatavianHorse's Avatar Tribunus Vacans
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Posts
    5,160

    Default Re: [Historiae] about Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Equites legionis and the Symmetrical System (3rd-6th cent. AD)

    Pompeius Magnus. I have just entered into this thread after perusing a thread over in RAT debating the 'Last Legion Standing' and can only express (again) my admiration for your work and writing skills. Well done on a superb piece of research and presentation. I wil be re-reading this for many days to come!

  13. #13
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: [Historiae] about Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Equites legionis and the Symmetrical System (3rd-6th cent. AD)

    @SBH
    Mate - I'm honoured. Thank you for the kind words.
    The problem for me is that this elaboration comes hand in hand with a revision of the thread about the History of the Legion. It is required to change some important things regarding the border Legions :-(
    Last edited by Pompeius Magnus; September 05, 2012 at 07:14 PM.

  14. #14
    Constantius's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    England-Londinivm
    Posts
    3,383

    Default Re: [Historiae] about Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Equites legionis and the Symmetrical System (3rd-6th cent. AD)

    Thats scholarship PM, your revising your findings for the benefit of our subject- we thank you


    Signature made by Joar


  15. #15

    Default Re: [Historiae] about Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Equites legionis and the Symmetrical System (3rd-6th cent. AD)

    We cannot thank you enough for such articles. Ages of Darkness is really one of the last modifications where you can learn something. In other mod threads about late romans you find imo to many fantasy novella or commercial for self made stuff. This is really very pleasant and quiet here. AoD, the whole nine yards.
    Last edited by Aetius1; August 11, 2012 at 08:40 AM.

  16. #16
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: [Historiae] about Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Equites legionis and the Symmetrical System (3rd-6th cent. AD)

    Thank you Aetius. Very nice comment.

  17. #17

  18. #18
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: [Historiae] about Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Equites legionis and the Symmetrical System (3rd-6th cent. AD)

    The picture is one of many others shown in the Biblia Pentateuchus - a bible from the sixth or early seventh century. Thank you very much druzhina345. rep

  19. #19

    Default Re: [Historiae] about Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Equites legionis and the Symmetrical System (3rd-6th cent. AD)

    Quote Originally Posted by Aetius1 View Post
    We cannot thank you enough for such articles. Ages of Darkness is really one of the last modifications where you can learn something. In other mod threads about late romans you find imo to many fantasy novella or commercial for self made stuff. This is really very pleasant and quiet here. AoD, the whole nine yards.
    This is why 80% of my focus is on this mod! It taught me lots of things about the Roman Empire/Byzantines in this period (The Historiae) Can't wait to play as the Goths in Italy, as I've never seen that in a game so far. My one hope is all factions get represented equally.

    +rep for you!
    Last edited by BroskiDerpman; August 24, 2012 at 09:06 AM.

  20. #20
    Pompeius Magnus's Avatar primus inter pares
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Frankfurt Main/Germany
    Posts
    5,364

    Default Re: [Historiae] about Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Equites legionis and the Symmetrical System (3rd-6th cent. AD)

    Quote Originally Posted by BroskiDerpman View Post
    My one hope is all factions get represented equally
    Of course all factions are researched equially, however, in some cases it is historically difficult to find more than 3 different troop-types for some factions. I just tell this because some people are probably disappointed to find 5 different troops for Thuringi. Actually most germanic factions (the core group) had just few troops and many military services were "outsourced" to other germanic tribes. But as said said, the research is handled with care for all factions and all unit names are evidenced by at least on primary source.

    Finally thank you very much for the attention on AoD2. rep back

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •