the return of the Gallic comitatus

[First Citizen Gallienus]

Nice. Too bad they didn't add this unit to the Eastern Empire's roster in Attila. I mean, they were still around weren't they? Would've been nice to see all four actually, Joviani/Herculiani seniores and iuniores.

[Gäiten]

[Diocle]

May I remind you Gaiten we are still waiting .. and waiting .. and waiting, so ..

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

The Iovani and Herculani are attested in Claudians De Bello Gildonico in 398, 3 years after the Notitia is first dated. The Notitia was updated until 428 AD according to Leon Fleuriot (other authors suggest 419 or 425 so it is hard to say). We can therefore assume that its records on the Gallic, Italic, and African field armies are accurate. However, the Spanish and British armies are questionable (Luke Ueda-Sarson discusses this and so do I in my appendix which needs to be updated, now that I think of it...)

[First Citizen Gallienus]

Diocletian created all four them correct?

[Majorien]

Diocletian created all four them correct?

Yes, but not from scratch. He promoted danubian legions which where still crack units (with special skills in throwing plumbatae).
Ioviani : legio, core of the comitatus of Diocletian, named after his personnal divinity.
Herculiani : Legio, core fo the comitatus of Maximianus, his co-emperor, named after his own god.

The caesars of tetrarchy have had their legio too : martenses and solenses, but they weren't good as the herculiani/ioviani, and at the end of the fourth century were classified as low quality units.

The split seniores/iuniores comes from the blood bath of Mursa, where the Empire lost more than 50 000 excellent soldiers in this battle. Constantius II created from surviving units a iunior one with young privates and a few officers and veterans from the senior one. Many scholars (but not all...) consider that the seniores units have always been better than the iuniores.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Yes, but not from scratch. He promoted danubian legions which where still crack units (with special skills in throwing plumbatae).
Ioviani : legio, core of the comitatus of Diocletian, named after his personnal divinity.
Herculiani : Legio, core fo the comitatus of Maximianus, his co-emperor, named after his own god.

Allegedly. This is what Vegetius says - that the Herculean and Jovian Legions were renowned for their skills with the Martiobarbulus. I don't remember if they were newly raised units or if they were formed out of Vexillationes of older units.

EDIT: N.P. Milner suggests they may have been formed from old-style Auxilia units, reorganized and upgraded into Legions.

The caesars of tetrarchy have had their legio too : martenses and solenses, but they weren't good as the herculiani/ioviani, and at the end of the fourth century were classified as low quality units.

This is pure speculation and IIRC they were field army units.

The split seniores/iuniores comes from the blood bath of Mursa, where the Empire lost more than 50 000 excellent soldiers in this battle. Constantius II created from surviving units a iunior one with young privates and a few officers and veterans from the senior one. Many scholars (but not all...) consider that the seniores units have always been better than the iuniores.

Again, pure speculation. We have no real idea.

[Diocle]

It would be useful to investigate the composition of Diocles' army, during his triumphal march towards Margus River and his Glorious Final Victory on July 1038 A.U.C., among those men, in fact, we may find the first ancestors of Joviani and Herculiani Sen., on the shores of those waters they may lie the roots of those two legendary legions ..

[Majorien]

Allegedly. This is what Vegetius says - that the Herculean and Jovian Legions were renowned for their skills with the Martiobarbulus. I don't remember if they were newly raised units or if they were formed out of Vexillationes of older units.

EDIT: N.P. Milner suggests they may have been formed from old-style Auxilia units, reorganized and upgraded into Legions.



This is pure speculation and IIRC they were field army units.



Again, pure speculation. We have no real idea.

MMFA, you're a joke. But not that funny after all.

EDIT : i'll give you a tip. Before a critic without argument wich ridiculed you, at least ask for arguments.
Concerning Herculiani and Ioviani, i invite you to read Rodriguez Gonzalez (2003, II pages 461 and 473-474) and Speidel (1982 pages 858-860).
To be complete, Tomlin (2000, page 161) has an another version, units created from scratch by Diocletian, but he's not followed by other scholars (Rocco, 2012 page 159). You're welcome.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Concerning Herculiani and Ioviani, i invite you to read Rodriguez Gonzalez (2003, II pages 461 and 473-474) and Speidel (1982 pages 858-860).
To be complete, Tomlin (2000, page 161) has an another version, units created from scratch by Diocletian, but he's not followed by other scholars (Rocco, 2012 page 159). You're welcome.

On the creation of the Diocletianic units, I stand corrected.

However, on the Battle of Mursa it IS speculation. We have absolutely no idea and authors have suggested many theories for the Seniores/Juniores split including the "Posterior" centuries in Legions, the Battle of the River Frigidus, amongst many others. Mursa is one theory but there is no evidence in the primary sources or archaeological record to say that "this is where the Seniores and Juniores" first appear.

In fact the "posterior centuries" theory might be correct. Recent work on the Perge Tablets released by Faith Onur could be used to support that theory. There's a recent discussion on RomanArmyTalk between SBH and some others where they discussed the reconstruction.

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/thr...html#pid338390

Many scholars do consider the Seniores units were better but we don't have real evidence for that either. It's again speculation, and I find it highly unlikely, and it's also based off of one of the theories that Seniores/Juniores split which suggests the Seniores were drawn from Veterans, which meant the difference in quality would be totally arbitrary over time.

It's not unfounded speculation, but it is speculation.

MMFA, you're a joke. But not that funny after all.

EDIT : i'll give you a tip. Before a critic without argument wich ridiculed you, at least ask for arguments.

Addressing this, petty insults won't get you anywhere. No I don't usually have time to go look up the specific citations in my posts, I don't even have access to all of them, and many I can't read because I only know English and Latin. Copies of M. Spiedel, etc. are very, very expensive and they're not even available through a university library system. I was surprised I could get access to AHM Jones, in fact. However, I will say where the information can be found or who you can go to in order that you might (lol subjunctive) learn more.

Furthermore my research doesn't concern the late 3rd-early 4th centuries, I deal almost purely with the 5th century which can bring me as far back as the late 4th or as far forward as the late 6th century, it's a different period of transition with different structure. At most regarding the early 4th century army I deal with the pay lists from the Elephantine Papyrii and their reconstructions by Jones and Duncan-Jones and crossbow fibula typology.

I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. Insulting me doesn't add to the discussion.

[Majorien]

I'm now trying to depict irregular troops, the bucellarii...
There is many illustrations you can find on the web on this personnal retinue of late roman generals, formed by barbarians and roman veterans, and payed by there masters.
here one i particularly like :
and my "version" in miniature :

more pics as usual here : https://comitatusgaulois.wordpress.c...i-bucellaires/

[Diocle]

Good painting job and very interesting subject!

For me Belisarius' Bucellarii are one of the most fascinating parts of VI century's history. I've read they were mainly heavy or extra heavy cavalrymen armed with Contus and bow, also Aetius had his personal Hunnic retainers, the same can be said for Flavius Stilicho and other V century Magistri. The point of interest it would be understanding in which way the Bucellarii eveolved and if there has been any kind of standardization of their equipment during the course of V and VI centuries.

[AntonioHundangir]

Well maybe, thats the right place for my question.
Someone know something about syagrius army?
I know there was a little gallic comitatus (possibly of gallic levies, and few.rests of the gallic field army) and the rest was frankish foederati (that abandoned him when clovis attacked mayve.).

[Majorien]

Hello Antonio,

unfortunately we don't know. Penny Mc George, in her FANTASTIC book "Late Roman Warlords" told us that Syagrius surely inherited from his father the last regular units of the Gallic comitatus. Obviously, we don't know wich unit. We just know (at least it is almost a consensus among schollars) that the last upgrade of the notitia was done for the last time for Aetius, when he became Magister Militum per Gallias. And we do know that regular units survived everywhere in the Western part, even after the end of the Empire. I think it is Procopius who speaks about regular roman units, fighting in the roman way under their emblems, and "dressed as romans", posted on the Rhine years after the Fall. And life of Severus told us the same in Pannonia.
Bernard Bachrach, the specialist of merovingian army, even thinks that Clovis won because of his "roman troops". at Vouillé, he defeated Wisigoths usings Taifali cavalry, wich used to be an "unit" in roman service.

Gallic levies from the Soissons region are considered as likely by Mc George : the north of Gaul always provided for fighters, and an analysis of the Soissons region showed that it was a strong Roman civilization stronghold, not having suffered population decline.
Frankish Foederati are sure 100%, for many reasons i'm not able to summarize right now ! :-)

[Diocle]

I avoid any deepening on this subject (for some bad personal memory about the subject) but, let me say just this: to have "regular" units, you need a State. A State paying for them, dressing them, equipping them, giving them the hierarchy, the discipline and the values which make it a "regular" unit, (for example, you won't find any "regular" Confederate unit after 1865, you'll find a lot of disbanded soldiers but you won't find any regular Unit with the Confederate flag, with the Confederate uniform maintaining its cohesion after 1865) so, I think that after the Fall, no one regular unit survived more than the necessary time to find another good job. At least their officers and the more experienced men in their ranks, could have some realistic hope to find a place as mercenaries, inside some Comitatus of some more or less ambitious Warboss, Warlord or local Regulus. Everything you want .. but "regular"

[AntonioHundangir]

But syagrius controlled a rump state. He control the weapons fabric of noviodunum. Etc i guess he had good equipped troops. Another question i have is that: another roman warlord was marcellinus, the uncle of julius nepos.
He was possibly of southern italian origin, since he was greek speaker, and for simple time issue (in 429-460 times when marcellinus floruit, the only greek speaker parts of western was eastern sicily, basilicata, part of puglia and campania, and calabria. Magna grecia.).
When aetius come back with his hunnic mercenaries after the death of bonifacius, he send litorius to gaul, and marcellinus to occupy dalmatia. Marxellinus controlled the weapons fabrics in dalmatia, and navy yards, he had a better equipped army and navy, (illyrian infantry and sailors. The cavalry was almost all mercenaries. Over the equites dalmatae.).
Now all, from genseric to ricimer feared marcellinus arny and navy (indeed when he was killed, the pirate of carthage maked a party, sayin :romans cut their right hand. Genseric feared much marcellinus that defeated vandal armies several times in sicily, corsica, and sardegna.).
Who was equites and auxilia illyricani? (marcellinus control a real comitatus. With at least 1 field legion.). Since caracalla times, illyrian should be citizens.
So why they served in an auxiliary unit? Or they was some tribe thay didnt received roman citizenship? (not all received it with caracalla). Even some less romanized people of dalmatia? Or they was illyrian infantry, heir of the auxilia of principate period, and the equites was sarmatian laeti settled in illyricum? (some sarmatian was settled.there. and some unit name wasnt an etnic trait. Like equites.mauri dalmati. A illlyrian cavalry that fight like numidians. Like equites scutarii.). Who was auxilia illiricani and equites dalmat? An elite corp? Why they after caracalla times, still to be classified like auxilia?

[Diocle]

From the beginning of IV century I think the distinction (if still existed any, during the second half of the III century) between auxiliary and legionary troops was no more existent; it was just a nominalistic matter, of surviving military traditions of few individual units.

In italian (just to be clearer): "Ritengo che fosse una divisione solo nominalistica, niente di più. Sopravvivenza di filamenti di storia a lunga durata, direbbero i Francesi della scula delle 'Annales' (Bloch, Febvre, Braudel, Le Goff Nora, Vovelle etc.)"

[AntonioHundangir]

Yes. But some still. The name for example. So a legio palatina was anycase considered more elite than an auxilia palatina. (not ever. For example petulantes was heavily armed. Andnwas considered like legions. Others was light infantry like mattiaci. And they still in auxilia role. I spek on the field. Protect the flanks to field legions.) also if was almost same.). The auxilia role was taken by foederati. But not ever was so. aetius tried to use an old style organization: legio comitatenses and palatina flanked by auxilia palatina, and foederati (the majority of the army). Units under his command was placidi valentiniani felices for example. An auxilia palatina. And others. But aetius rarely used infantry. Hunnic and alan foederati was his mainly used forced. But he tried to mantain an old style organization about the field army..for what i know. Anycase, someone know about illiricani? Sarmatian laeti or dalmatian troops that mantained the name of auxilia? Since illyrian troops served in legions in that time, i guess they was something like laeti, bur i dont know nothing.

[Majorien]

I avoid any deepening on this subject (for some bad personal memory about the subject) but, let me say just this: to have "regular" units, you need a State. A State paying for them, dressing them, equipping them, giving them the hierarchy, the discipline and the values which make it a "regular" unit, (for example, you won't find any "regular" Confederate unit after 1865, you'll find a lot of disbanded soldiers but you won't find any regular Unit with the Confederate flag, with the Confederate uniform maintaining its cohesion after 1865) so, I think that after the Fall, no one regular unit survived more than the necessary time to find another good job. At least their officers and the more experienced men in their ranks, could have some realistic hope to find a place as mercenaries, inside some Comitatus of some more or less ambitious Warboss, Warlord or local Regulus. Everything you want .. but "regular"

this is an interesting debate Diocle ! I think the concept of "state", in its modern sense, is not valid. During the late empire, schock troops were headquartered in cities, under the regime of hospitalitas : a third of everything (food, roomspace, oil....) of every private property (except those of senators, wich is a reason of the Fall i think, but the latifundian system is an another debate !) was devolved to garrison soldiers. The pay too : civitas provided locally the annona. With this system, the Empire could maintain local forces without its former centralization.
Basically, if your city/civitas was still flourishing, there is no reason for loosing its troops. With the last days of time, the roman local authority was always more...local. There is no more comes or dux for a region, but for a little territory, even a city, sometimes riduculously little : those comes or dux came to power comanding local troops...
Last but not least, do not understimate the roman logistics, even in the late era ! Paul Veyne, a great scholar, calculated that the annona given every year to the Wisigoths in southern Gaul since 416 consisted of 3,500 tonnes of wheat, transported by more than 7000 trucks ! Not bad for the praetorian prefecture of the Gauls, right ? ;-)

[AntonioHundangir]

For example in the east and in post roman britain there s some evidence thay after sometime, around fall of the eest, middle v century, they restarted to recruit citizens, and to use barbarians in a more auxilisry role. (especially during marcian zenone and leone periods, in costantinople was dangerous for a barbarian soldier go out the night. Was much hated by people and isaurian generals restart to recruit only romans. Greel, macedonian,isaurian, syrian, and egyptian soldiers, over the illyrians. And to use the barbarians in more "allieds status". Some historian tell that barbarians soldiers didnt passed a good period in the east in that time. In costantinople they didnt go out if at least in 3-4 around mid-late v century. Because often they was attacled by people in dark streets. And in the army the isaurian generals started to recruit again inside the empure. Yet for avoid what was happening in west. Samething for britannic warlords. Thats was impossible in western empire where foederati rule. When someone tried to disband they, they revolted. They done that also in east, but was defeated bevause east could afford again a strong "national" army. ). Do yes.the difference between auxilia/legions was non existent in late period, but not ever, and some soft one still.