The Anastasian Edict from Perge

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

I have come across an interesting essay which draws attention to the fragments of an inscription found at Perge in Pamphylia. The inscription is in three parts and which lists in detail the numbers of soldiers and their salaries present in the legion units stationed nearby. The essay states that the number of soldiers listed is large enough to be a double-sized unit and then goes on to present evidence that these were legio palatini units.

Another summary article outlines in a little more detail the fact that this Anastasian period inscription is in three parts A] the first plaque bears a sermo of an emperor to his soldiers ordering the military dispositio B] bears the order (praeceptio) of a Magister Militum which names Anastasius as the author C] outlines the gnosis or notitia of the numbers of men in each grade or group of a legion, their respective annona and the permissable rate of its commutation. The author writes that the titles of the grades attests to the conservatism of the nomenclature of the legions in the late 5th and early 6th C.

I wonder if anyone here has more information on this?

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

I have contacted the academic involved on the translations of the stone edicts and he has graciously sent me an early draft of some of the inscriptions. Very interesting reading - including a rank/grade break down of a legio palatini which bears comparisons to both Vegetius and Lydus! I may post more later when I have a chance to study it!

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Cool! Looking forward to seeing this.

[wulfgar610]

http://akdeniz.academia.edu/FatihOnu..._Centuries_A.D

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Yes, thanks, Wulgar610. That is the paper which originally peaked my interest!

[wulfgar610]

Yes, thanks, Wulgar610. That is the paper which originally peaked my interest!

The Wiki article on the Isaurians is rather sparse, I wonder if there's some good romantic novels?

Leaves me wondering what Isaurians had that the others didn't? Surely there's other mountain fastness in Anatolia?

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

There are but the article highlights its nearness to lucrative trade routes which allowed the Isaurians to develop a thirst for brigandage!

[wulfgar610]

There are but the article highlights its nearness to lucrative trade routes which allowed the Isaurians to develop a thirst for brigandage!

Yes, actually I noticed it was surrounded by favorable regions when I checked satellite.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

OK here are some more details from the paper he sent me!

Fatih Onur has made some preliminary details of the writings and published some extracts. He is hoping to publish in full later. As well as ‘The Roman Army in Pamphylia: From the Third to Sixth Centuries A.D.’ which is available online and was what first alerted me, he has also graciously sent me a follow-up paper entitled ‘The Military Edict of Anastasius from Perge’ which elaborates in more detail the edict itself.

What follows is a précis of his work, nothing more.


The Edict.

The stone fragments discovered over 30 years ago formed 3 slabs erected in the city of Perge in the reign of the emperor Anastasius. Each of the 3 slabs recorded a separate element (A, B and C) detailed as follows:

A] This is a Greek translation of the sermo of Anastasius detailing a legislation of a military disposition

B] This is a Greek translation of the praeceptum of a Magister Militum endorsing the emperor’s edict

C] This is a Greek notitia listing the numbers of men and their ranks/grades and their annona

Fatih Onur concludes that C represents legio palatini units stationed in Perge under the command of the Magister and notes that the sizes of the men indicate double-sized units.

Now the bulk of A is devoted to curtailing abuses in the army revolving around promotion, length of service, corruption, and greed. The last section details punishments which include for example being fined 50 pounds of gold (3600 solidi or 600 annona). B echoes these edicts but in the words of the Magister Militum Praesentalis and adds a few details to do with banishment and the death penalty.

It is C however which really grabbed my attention. This is a notitia in Greek that records the numbers of men in each grade group (scholae) and their provisions in kind and the amounts of commutation. Faith Onur argues that C was already prepared before B due to a reference in B and therefore is linked to the emperor’s original sermo. The information is provided in tabular form with each row recording a grade group and again Fatih Onur argues that the details indicate the data was taken directly from the praetorian prefecture. The key to the edict is the enumeration of the number of soldiers and their units in the muster rolls (matricula). C is an abridged list designed to prevent abuse of the military system to do with corruption. It is an attempt to record and fix rewards and pay.

Fatih Onur brings to attention the most interesting part of the inscription which is on the last slab (C). Here is a list of the grades in the Roman army and the rewards due to each grade and their numbers within a unit. In the article he has sent me, he presents the list of the grades alongside a comparative list by Vegetius and a subsequent one by the later Lydus. What Fatih Onur finds remarkable is the similarity of grades from circa 430-55 (Vegetius) to AD mid-sixth century (Lydus). This Anastasian edict (491-500) details very similar grades.

Alas the paper Fatih Onur sent me does not go into detail regarding the actual unit sizes (what first piqued my interest!) but there is an attached photo of slab C of the notitia. Of course I have no Greek translation skills at hand.

What I am going to do now then is the grade breakdown as presented on C. Those familiar with Vegetius and Lydus will be able to see the similarity and also differences. I hope this is of interest!

Inscription of Perge Slab C:


Tribunus Maior
Tribunus Minor
Ordinarii
Augustales
Augustales alii (1)
Augustales alii (2)
Flaviales
Flaviales alii
Signiferi
Optiones
Veredarii
Veredarii alii
Vexillarii
Imaginiferi
Librarii
Mensores
Tubicines
Cornicines
Bucinatores
Preaco
Armaturae Duplares
Beneficiarii
Torquati semissales
Brachiati semissales
Armaturae semissales
Munifices
Clerici and Deputati


He has advised me that he presented more details at the last Roman Army Congress at Lyon which will be published at the end of summer. I was really hoping that I would be able to get access to the unit sizes as I know this is a matter of some interest but the article he forwarded on to me does not go into those details – despite the photo of C in its entirety.

Anyway, I thought I would pass this on – it certainly got my attention when I came across it and then contacted him for more detail!

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Interesting - and how does Vegetius apply to 430-455?

[Valentinian Victor]

Interesting - and how does Vegetius apply to 430-455?

Indeed. Vegetius is believed to have written his 'Epitome' sometime between 390AD and 420AD, probably before 410AD as he does not specifically mention the first sack of Rome by the Goth's, although he does make a rather cryptic statement about the 'destruction of so many great cities'.
However, this is not in anyway a detractment of SPB's valuable thread, and I am very keen to see the translation of the unit sizes as this will have a major impact on research into the Late Roman army.
SBH- any chance of putting up a photo of the 3rd stone so that those who can read Greek, or know a scholar who does, can have a go at a translation?

[Dragases]

Indeed. Vegetius is believed to have written his 'Epitome' sometime between 390AD and 420AD, probably before 410AD as he does not specifically mention the first sack of Rome by the Goth's, although he does make a rather cryptic statement about the 'destruction of so many great cities'.

I recently wrote a draft chapter on Vegetius and it is impossible to say with great certainty when exactly he was writing. There are only two exact chronological references concerning the Epitome. Vegetius speaks about Gratian as divus clearly implying that he was dead. The second clue is a consular dating to a manuscript of the Epitome in 450. Consequentially the work must have been written between 383-450. We know the work was addressed to an emperor, most likely residing in the West. The two most likely candidates are Theodosius I, during his stay in Italy after Magnus Maximus' defeat (388-391), or Valentinian III, after the peace treaty with the Vandals (440s).

Michael Charles has written a recent monograph on dating the Epitome and he makes a compelling case for a Valentinian date. He points out that no reference can be found to any divided or shared authority over the empire in Vegetius. It rarely happened that imperial colleagues – especially if they were the senior Augustus’ children (if the addressed emperor were to be Theodosius) - were not mentioned in such works. A more important factor is Vegetius’ claim that during the reign of Gratian infantry ceased to wear armour. Though most likely an exaggerated claim, such a statement would make most sense during the reign of Valentinian III when the majority of the Western army would have been composed of Germanic foederati of whom it was quite rare to have helmets and body armour. Furthermore, the section on naval warfare makes more sense during Valentinian’s reign when the Vandals conquered North Africa and acquired a fleet that enable them to widely engage in piracy.

Personally, the most convincing argument I've heard in favour of a Valentinian date was made by Walter Goffart in the 1970s. He remarked that Vegetius also wrote the Mulomedicina where he shows considerable personal experience with horse breeds, above all the Hunnic warhorse. Such first-hand experience makes most sense during during Valentinian III’s reign.

[Valentinian Victor]

I recently wrote a draft chapter on Vegetius and it is impossible to say with great certainty when exactly he was writing. There are only two exact chronological references concerning the Epitome. Vegetius speaks about Gratian as divus clearly implying that he was dead. The second clue is a consular dating to a manuscript of the Epitome in 450. Consequentially the work must have been written between 383-450. We know the work was addressed to an emperor, most likely residing in the West. The two most likely candidates are Theodosius I, during his stay in Italy after Magnus Maximus' defeat (388-391), or Valentinian III, after the peace treaty with the Vandals (440s).

Michael Charles has written a recent monograph on dating the Epitome and he makes a compelling case for a Valentinian date. He points out that no reference can be found to any divided or shared authority over the empire in Vegetius. It rarely happened that imperial colleagues – especially if they were the senior Augustus’ children (if the addressed emperor were to be Theodosius) - were not mentioned in such works. A more important factor is Vegetius’ claim that during the reign of Gratian infantry ceased to wear armour. Though most likely an exaggerated claim, such a statement would make most sense during the reign of Valentinian III when the majority of the Western army would have been composed of Germanic foederati of whom it was quite rare to have helmets and body armour. Furthermore, the section on naval warfare makes more sense during Valentinian’s reign when the Vandals conquered North Africa and acquired a fleet that enable them to widely engage in piracy.

Personally, the most convincing argument I've heard in favour of a Valentinian date was made by Walter Goffart in the 1970s. He remarked that Vegetius also wrote the Mulomedicina where he shows considerable personal experience with horse breeds, above all the Hunnic warhorse. Such first-hand experience makes most sense during during Valentinian III’s reign.

I'm aware of these debates and they hold a lot of merit as of course Vegetius states that that there was no need to discuss cavalry and their arms in too much detail in the Epitome as they had been brought into 'perfection after the manner of the Goths, Huns and Alans'. Goth's had been employed in increasing numbers since Constantine the Great inflicted the Treaty of 323AD on them, they were used by Constantius II and Julian on their campaigns and also employed by Valens before Adrianople, and of course from 378AD they began to be employed in ever increasing numbers. The Alans were first noted as being employed by the Romans during Gratian's reign and at least one ancient author points the finger at the Alans as the reason behind Gratian's murder (Gratian's 'Roman' followers distaining the fact that he began to surround himself with Alanic barbarians cited as one reason for his murder). The absolute earliest that Hun's were noted as being in Roman employ was a unit in Africa around 400AD. However, we have to be looking after the 420's for there to be any sort of numbers within the Roman army that would have had the sort of influence over both cavalry arms and armour but also tactics.

It is very odd that he makes no specific mention of the sack of Rome though.

[Renatus]

I recently wrote a draft chapter on Vegetius and it is impossible to say with great certainty when exactly he was writing. There are only two exact chronological references concerning the Epitome. Vegetius speaks about Gratian as divus clearly implying that he was dead. The second clue is a consular dating to a manuscript of the Epitome in 450. Consequentially the work must have been written between 383-450. We know the work was addressed to an emperor, most likely residing in the West. The two most likely candidates are Theodosius I, during his stay in Italy after Magnus Maximus' defeat (388-391), or Valentinian III, after the peace treaty with the Vandals (440s).

Michael Charles has written a recent monograph on dating the Epitome and he makes a compelling case for a Valentinian date. He points out that no reference can be found to any divided or shared authority over the empire in Vegetius. It rarely happened that imperial colleagues – especially if they were the senior Augustus’ children (if the addressed emperor were to be Theodosius) - were not mentioned in such works. A more important factor is Vegetius’ claim that during the reign of Gratian infantry ceased to wear armour. Though most likely an exaggerated claim, such a statement would make most sense during the reign of Valentinian III when the majority of the Western army would have been composed of Germanic foederati of whom it was quite rare to have helmets and body armour. Furthermore, the section on naval warfare makes more sense during Valentinian’s reign when the Vandals conquered North Africa and acquired a fleet that enable them to widely engage in piracy.

Personally, the most convincing argument I've heard in favour of a Valentinian date was made by Walter Goffart in the 1970s. He remarked that Vegetius also wrote the Mulomedicina where he shows considerable personal experience with horse breeds, above all the Hunnic warhorse. Such first-hand experience makes most sense during during Valentinian III’s reign.

It is some time since I read Michael Charles' book but I recall that I did not find his arguments over-persuasive. I hope to devote some time to considering this subject in the future but my present views are summarised in my posts in the first three pages of this thread. See also the review by Everett Wheeler quoted there by ray243.

[Dragases]

It is some time since I read Michael Charles' book but I recall that I did not find his arguments over-persuasive. I hope to devote some time to considering this subject in the future but my present views are summarised in my posts in the first three pages of this thread. See also the review by Everett Wheeler quoted there by ray243.

The admirable thing about Charles is that he admits himself that it is impossible to make an unchallenged case for this or that emperor. Vegetius just does not leave us enough hints for that. However, Charles had shown that the case for Theodosius I is weaker than that for Valentinian III.

[The_Nord]

Very interesting SBH, I'll stay tuned for further developments! +rep

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Just a quick post at the moment but please note the Vegetius date I quoted above is not my opinion but that of Fatih Onur in his article. I was summarising his research. I agree the issue with the dating of Vegetius is an interesting area of debate. However, I think it is perhaps a side issue in relation to the Anastasian Edict found on the fragments at Perge. I will post more later. If anyone requires a copy of the two papers, please PM me your email and I will forward it on.

Also those of you who are members of RAT will find this post replicated there and an interesting response from one of the members in terms of a preliminary response.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

It is tantalising but my Greek is non-existent!

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Crap, I'm not taking Greek this year... Ummm... I'll see if I can get a Greek Dictionary my friend alex has one.

Also, the argument for Valentinian III is quite compelling, considering the fact that Aetius' Army would be mostly unarmored Limitanei in service as pseudocomitatenses, but alternatively I think it could fall under the Era of Constantius III, as it could be a dedication to his coronation and he was the first to employ huns in greater numbers than had been seen before. It could have also been under Ioannes usurpation because MAybe Vegetius was sent with the Embassy Aetius lead to get foederati support, as such close contact with hunnic horse breeds would require to some extent a visit to their capital.