Kastresianoi

[Deutschland]

Hey AoD members/fans,

I wondered about the position of the Kastresianoi unit in the 6th century. What are they now?

Are they former, devoluted Limitanei or

actual Limitanei, but like in Egypt really not much more than a police force,

or a new unit?

Are they comparable to a city/kastron militia maybe?

Thanks for your replies!

[Pompeius Magnus]

The Castrenses were the official sub-group of the Limitanei. All Castrenses were Limitanei - but not all Limitanei were Castrenses. This is cleary detailed in the Codex Theodosianus - later included and more detailed in the Codex Iustinianus.

And I don't understand the question if they are comparable with a kastron militia? Castrenses or Castresianoi means Castle Garrison. Insofar the question should be answered. Furthermore one must say that the term "kastron" was also given to regular cities and its core was the "phrouria" or "phrougion". Prokopius calles them φυλακτήρια δὲ στρατιωτῶν.

Then a last word to the Limitanei. My studies in the last 2 years - also part of my new book - regarding the egyptian Papyri have clearly shown that Limitanei were neither "static" nor of "lower quality".
These are preconceptions which cannot hold up after an intensive research - concerning the east roman empire.
Also the term "limes" must be reconsidered. Limitanei were of course not just simple frontier forces - degraded to simple police duties. We have some indication that this term meant something like "the outback" or "Hinterland" in the case of Egypt, north Africa and the province of Spania - it's not referred to a strict line of castles, forming a fixed border.
Otherwise we could not explain why so called "Limitanei" units were evidently taken from Palastinae and Egypt, sent to the north african campaign of Belisarius - and 60 years later (+/-640AD) the same units are mentioned as italian garrisons in a letter of a Pope.
That's probably also the reason why the Strategikon doesn't make a difference in Book XII. between Limitanei and Comitatenses - simply because it was just a classification of troops and not a new kind of troop!
That's also the reason why I always highly advise to name units as evidenced in Papyri findings or books - that is the classification as Numerus (latin) or Arithmos (greek) concerning infantry and Bandus/Bandum for cavalry.
The Strategikon suggests in the first chapter that both terms are somewhat exchangable for inf and cav - but by reading the original greek version one can find many indication that the first version of the Strategikon was written for cavalry only - and that the infantry-book XII. was added to a later stage - and then the terminus "Arithmos" was added between existing sentences in the first Books as well. Also the diagrams of the first books offering just a "K" in the grafic, and this means nothing else than "Kavallarioi" - recognizing the fact that there was just a standard cavalry with lance and bow - probably the best one the romans ever had in their history.
The term Tagma, some authors call it "Taxis" (like Agathias did in a classicing way). This term describes a battle field order and means a flexible regiment when it's formed on battle field into equal Tagmatas or Taxis - ergo formed by Numeri and Banda. The Tagma is not a single unit. A Tagma on the battle field can also be formed by 2 different Numeri. Or a huge Numerus with 800 men will be divided into 2 battle field Tagmas. We have to differ between the official military language and that of ancient authors like Procopius, Malalas and Agathias. Gorripus, for example, offers the latin term "Agmina" for the Numeri - since this author prefers an ancient wording.
Katalogoi, the enlisted soldiers, can refer to Comitanteses as well as Limitanei. So if Procopius or even the greek Novelles of Justinian are speaking about hippeis katalogoi it means a) legionary cavalry (was probably still existing during the reign of Anastasius and Justinian to a certain degree as shown by the Perge slabs = Veredarii) or b) cavalry of the mobile field armies (e.g. Vexillations).
The word "stratiotai" in greek means Comitatenses. But there are exceptions in egyptian papyri also in the case when the term stratiotai is referring to units - known from the Notitia as Limitanei. So, even here the wording is somewhat "spongy".

If you want just take the classification of Numeri and Banda I suggest the following troop-list, however, I have to agree that it is not so easy.
Esp. the Tiberiaci need some more research (see list below) from my side. That a second Bandum is existing can mean that one Tiberiaci-regiment was subdivided into several Banda. But we know that the single files or cavalry cohorts were subdivided into lochoi. A 15th Bandum for the Illyriciani-cavalry is known for the Mesopotamian border - and I have my doubts that one regiment is subdivided by 15 parts. We have, in fact, 15 cavalry regiments of the Illyriciani and this can be observed by the Strategikon. Actually the Illyriciani were a division like the Foederati and Optimati. In the case of the Tiberiaci we may suggest that this troop was deployed by Tiberius in the mid sixth century and was consisting of several independent Banda/regiments.

Limitanei/ Numerus limitaneorum
Scutati/ Numerus scutatorum
Excubitores/ Numerus Excubitorum
Domestici/ Numerus domesticorum
Armati/ Numerus Armatus (light armed auxillaries)
Acontistai
Sagittarii
Castrenses / Numerus Castrensianorum

Scholari/ Bandus Scholarum (Cod.Iust)
Comitati or Comites /Bandus Comtitatorum (Doryphoroi/bodyguard)
Armigeri/ Bandus Armigeriorum (Hypaspistai/bucellarii)
Vexillati/ Bandus Vexillationum (Strategikon)
Illyriciani/ Bandus Illyricianorum (Strategikon)
Foederati/ Bandus Foederatorum (Strategikon)
Tiberiaci/ Bandus Tiberiacum (see Papyrus Dip.111 of ~780AD of a primicerius bandi secundi tiberiaci; Chla XXII.722)
Optimati/ Bandus Optimatorum (Strategikon)

[Alkimachos]

Thank you very much for that P.M.

[Pompeius Magnus]

I'm a little bit busy at the moment gentlemen - therefore you have to wait sometimes for my answers. So, sorry for the long wating time. However, if there are questions or doubts left please let me know.

regards
pm

[Deutschland]

Thank you very much for you elaborate explanation!

Recently question has been raised about the historicity of the name Comitatenses in the 6th century. Right now, we have an unit (representing the unit category) named Comitatenses.

Was it still in use? We had originally decided to name all units in Latin for the Danube Limes campaign, but if the name had fallen out of use entirely it would be ahistorical.

Thank you for your reply.

[Pompeius Magnus]

Some sources first:

Justinian; NOV. CIII 3,1 of the year 536AD to the proconsule of palaestine:
[...] Et ille quidem praeerit militibus et limitaneis et foederatis et quicquid in provincia armatum omnino est, [...]

After the reconquest of Africa to the office of the praetorian prefect of africa:
Codex Iust. 1.27.0. De officio praefecti praetorio Africae et de omni eiusdem dioeceseos statu.
sub 1.27.2 (8)
[...] Pro limitaneis vero ordinandis ( quia necessarium nobis esse videtur, ut extra comitatenses milites per castra milites limitanei constituantur, qui possint et castra et civitates limitis defendere et terras colere [...]

Codex Iust. 3.28.0. De inofficioso testamento.
Justinian, to the Praefectus Praetorio Ioannes in 531AD:
sub 3.28.37 (1a)
[...] In tali igitur peculio, quod quasi castrense appellatur, quibusdam personis licentia conceditur condere quidem testamenta, sed non quasi militibus pro voluerint modo, sed communi et licito et consueto ordine observando, quemadmodum constitutum fuerat in consulibus et praefectis legionum et praesidibus provinciarum et omnibus generaliter, qui in diversis dignitatibus vel administrationibus positi a nostra consequuntur manu vel ex publicis salariis quasdam largitates. [...]

______________________________________________________________________________

No term was lost or unknown in general!
I even have evaluated papyri of the mid-to-end 6th century which are referring to a legeonos in Egypt.
Castrenses, Limitanei and Comitatenses (greek stratiotai) were officially still in use.

But you have to differ between
a) the classification of a regiment on the one hand (that is Castrenses, Limitanei, Comitatenses) and
b) the designation of the regiment (this is the Numerus for Inf and the Bandus for Cav; (gr: inf = αριθμός and cav = βάνδον)

the old designation of troops e.g. Legio, Cohors, Vexiallatio (in the meaning of a single regiment), the Auxilium, Equites ... etc ... were all still known in the Codex Iustinianus - but it is also true that those terms were quite outdated. In fact, and this is quite interesting, even in the Notitia Dignitatum the troops are many times collectively called "Numeri" (the numbers = in the meaning of the regiments).

Ergo the correct technical description is:
a "Numerus Limitaneorum" is a "Regiment of Limitanei"
a "Numerus Comitatensium" is a "Regiment of Comitatenses"

we can also give practical examples of the 6th century - shown in Papyri and other sources like Numerus legionum dacorum (the Daci) - that is obviously a troop which was designated as Numerus, still knowing its ancient role and therefore still using the term "Legio" in the tradition of classicing military history. And finally we can say that this troop was classificated as Comitatenses - whatever this means at the end of the 6th century. Finally I may say that this was not an attribute or guarantee for quality and mobility.

[Alkimachos]

Can we say Comitatenses Plumbatarii or Numerus Plumbatarii?

Thank you...

[Sertorio]

The Castrenses were the official sub-group of the Limitanei. All Castrenses were Limitanei - but not all Limitanei were Castrenses. This is cleary detailed in the Codex Theodosianus - later included and more detailed in the Codex Iustinianus.

Interesting because in portuguese, "castrense" is related to military culture and values and "castro" is an old name for castle or fortified villages. So a Castrense would be a limitanei garrisoning a fortification or city?
About the differences between the Limitanei and Comitatenses, i know the danger of comparing the classic age with the modern age, but could it be that the main difference between the Limitanei and the Comitatenses was the fact the seconds were assigned to no region or province in particular, while the Limitanei were?
It kinda remembers me of the modern Regiments that in some countries are territorial units while Brigade is a term usually applied to an operational force on the field independent of having the same number of men or not.
It would not be surprising, because even during the Principate the legions became very entangled the normal life of the provinces they remained in, probably turning the moving of a full Legion a complex and bureaucratic task.

[Pompeius Magnus]

Hello Sertorio,
according my research and after creating own maps of the different regions for my book (e.g. for Spania, Egypt, byz Africa etc), I'm absolutely convinced that troops classified as Limitanei were primarily regiments garrisoned in a border land/ frontier land (a march so to speak). We have also some evidence that in some cases one borderland/march was covering several provinces. That could explain why in the Justinian "East" (Mesopotamia and Syria) 3 or 4 different Dukes are mentioned during the same time frame for just 2 provinces!
It is also true that no regulation or novelle exists with the imperial order to build up a static line of walls or towers along the roman border. One Novelle of Justinian (adressed to the prefect of africa) orders to build up a Limitanei-defense - but actually this description is synonymous with a geographical area - not a linear hard frontier. Some egyptian Papyri are speaking of soldiers who went out from the home garrison at the Nile river to the "limitanie" to serve and protect the cities in the Nile valley. That could support the theory that the limitanie was just a borderland and no hard fixed frontier. That could also explain why the arabian Ghassanids took over the limitanei-service in Mesopotamia since they were "just" controlling the border march.
Escpecially during the reign of Justinian (but also before him) we see that the dislocation of "mobile" Comitatenses to the kastra neaby the borders was a normal procedure. It is quite interesting to see that in Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia a good proportion of Comitatenses was stationed more close to the border than some Limitanei.

And Sertorius, you have put a correct argument to the desk: troops stationed nearby or directly at the borders were quite "normal" since the reign of Octavian Caesar - evidently some farmland was given to them also in the 1st and 2nd century(!) and nobody would come to the idea to declare them as "low qualified", "not mobile" and "bad equipped". Just few troops during the Principate (II Parthica and the Praetorians) were garrisoned in the inner country - all others were standing at the borders. The term Limitanei - in the meaning of a clear distinction between them and mobile troops - is mentioned the first time not before 363AD - a time in which the Comitatenses (sacru comitatu) became so numerous that a new definition/name of troops was needed. From this time on I accept that a certain degradation of Limitanei can be observed, no doubt, but it was according the evidence not so extensive as always explained. Furthermore we have to allude the local cicumstances in the different parts of the empire.

Hello Alkimachos,
the Plumbatarii were no separate troop/regiment. The Strategikon evidently describes that the Plumbata was still a known and a quite common weapon for many soldiers.
But ok, why not.
> Numerus comitatensium plumbatarum <

[loveflying]

yeah,Thank you very much for that P.M.thanks

[ray243]

Looking at this post does makes me wonder who was the first author that make the assumption that the limitanei must be of lower quality.

[BroskiDerpman]

The elite units slowly degrade in status as they grow in numbers and get garrisoned/ attached to cities i.e Comitatenses.
(In heavily simplified statement)


Quite interesting and seems to be like the truth.

[Pompeius Magnus]

Looking at this post does makes me wonder who was the first author that make the assumption that the limitanei must be of lower quality.

Well, here we can go back to the 19th century and even more early. I have books of some german historians of the 17th and 18th century (mostly noble men) who started the first academical evaluation of the terms mentioned above. The base of their evaluation was made, of course, upon the tales of Ammianus, Procopius, Agathias, Malalas, Theophanus, Zosimus etc. The most famous german writers of the previous century was Otto Seeck, Alfred Domaszewski and Robert Grosse - authors who continued the evaluation. What the historians did during the last 40 years is to see some of the Procopian descriptions (and those of other authors as well) in a different light. A more critical analysis was carried out with the content of the ancients.

Sure, also Robert Grosse was one of the first who saw an ambivalent relationship to Infantry in general concerning Procopius. His descriptions don't match the fact that the most important pitched battles were still carried out by Infantry - placed in the center - and supported by well equipped cavalry.
Exceptions, like the battle of Tricamarum shouldn't be overrated - the sequence of the (cavalry) battle, it was more of a coincidence - and not so much planned.
Then we have meanwhile a better overview of Syrian and Armenian texts. Joshua the Stylite, a syriac author narrating the history of the war between the Later Roman Empire and Persians between 502 and 506 - gives many examples of infantry Numeri (Limitanei and Comitatenses), evolved in those actions. Since his tales were written in syrian language we must say that his descriptions were not so embadded into previous analysis. If they were ever mentioned once - then only in passing.

And the egyptian Papyri display very clear that Limitanei troops were taken to the campaign of Belisarius. Either as a core group at the beginning of the campaign - or later as reinforcements - sent to Africa and/or Italy. That doesn't say that they were automatically well drilled and well equipped - but at least the Limitanei can be absolved of the accusation of immobility.

But once more, my research is focused on the east roman army. And in the west, esp. in Gallia near the river rhine - we find a complete different situation. The troops were often cut off from the empire. They had to take care of themselves. And often these troops were living with their families in enclaves. This led to another development in the west than in the east.

In the east of the empire there existed almost every time a link between outposts to the capital. The institutions worked much better in the 5th and 6th Century. A high level of bureaucracy secured a solid tax revenue on the whole. Most recently one must say that the profound barbarism of the army in the East did not take place. The East Roman army was up to the throne of Justinian - and beyond - still very Roman.

[ray243]

How did the Eastern Roman Empire dealt with the "Roman" units that was still deployed in the lands of the former western Empire after 475? Officially those units are under the command of the Eastern Emperor.

[Pompeius Magnus]

Do you have a special unit in your mind?
Without making now a deep research I'm quite sure that no old unit formation has survived - at least it is not reported to us. The last mentioned Tribunus (Marmertinus) came to Rome to ask for the needed payment. This story happened during the era of the last emperor.
Procopius is speaking very vague about "roman" units behind the alps - still equipped and fighting in the way like the "ancients" did. That the things (politics) in gaul were of east roman interests is even reported in the Codex Iustinianus. The Codex informs us that the new installed Tribunus (! no Dux) of Septem was given enough soldiers that he is able to defend the final tip of africa, to man the dromons - and to observe Hispania and Gallia.

The only example of units which were definitively taken to roman service were the countless berber tribes of north africa. After the east romans arrived - many tribal leaders went with old contracts and papers and other certificates of the 5th century to the romans and asked for a renewal of the old military service. In most cases it was granted once more by the roman military. That means that the service to guard the border-land (the Limitan area) was given to the berbers, in exchange for military equipment, money and other little gifts (e.g. a golden crown, brooches and clips etc.). In this case one followed the same strategy like in the case of the Ghassanids.

But sure, finally it is possible that there were some local deployments, organized by the local citizens or clerics. I'm thinking about smaller cities of north africa and italy. In such a case it depends if those deployments were loyal to the emperor - and how quick they opened their city-gate. If there was no doubt regarding the loyality I'm quite sure that we find such units organized as "Numerus" in the official pay-rolls of the east roman empire.
That would explain the high rate of Numeri named after their city e.g. Numerus Mediolanensium, Numerus Genuensium, Numerus Ariminensium etc... In some case I was able to follow back the original unit. It is observable that some old Limitanei and Comintatenses were garrisoned in some italian cities - and some 50 or 60 years later their ancient names disappeared - and the unit was just named after the city in which it was garrisoned.

[Gäiten]

Interesting. It might have been possible that after the breakdown of the central Imperial authority some units might be recruited by the great magnates.

[Pompeius Magnus]

It is reported that Magnates deployed their own retinue from the late 4th, 5th and 6th century.
We know that because we have the laws or edicts from Theodosius, Valentinian up to Justinian which are repeating the demand not to sell weapons to private people or to deploy own guards.
The laws were repeated again and again - that shows that this was obviously a common procedure in the empire. It shows that the self-defense and self-armament was carried out by private individuals. But it is more than doubtful that the numbers were higher than 50 or 100 men - and 100 in the best case of a very rich person.
(if the source of the Codex Theod. or Codex Iust. is whished by someone just tell me and I will post it)

To tell you what I mean we have to jump a little between different cases and times.
Let us speak first about a "normal" deployed troop - let's a an infantry unit. I have - just few weeks ago - written an essay about Wallenstein (30 years of war). This essay was about the organization, logistics and the recapitulation of employed capital (funds). It is an incredible task to organize and deploy 500 soldiers, in the meaning of regulars (!). Wallenstein deployed the troops on behalf of the Emperor... what the Emperor didn't know :-)
He (Wallenstein) turned the creditors' claims - since he deployed the troop in the name of the Emperor - and he advanced money on loan. In the end, all the soldiers were then creditors of the empire. That's a very difficult system, however, also a well working system.
(!) This meant that the more troops were mustered by Wallenstein, Wallenstein became richer and richer - and the emperor was losing money. This system became so confusing that Wallenstein partially just employed a captain - and this captain had the duty to deploy his own troop. To get "demands" regarding the state was very attractive.
This "trick" used by Wallenstein wasn't known or even allowed to Belisarius. In our case of the ERE or WRE, the general was losing money from the first moment of his deployment. Not speaking about the incredible supplies, food, goods, maintaining workshops etc. It is one thing to maintain factories for supplying existing troops - it is another thing to supply an army from scratch.

That what I want tell here is that it is not so easy to deploy troops. You can deploy them (or organize mercenaries) - but after the one-time-payment you have to maintain them every day. And to do this you need a lot of money and a long breath.
In the case of Italy of the 6th century one can observe that just trading centers and the church were able to maintain troops - since the senatorial class with their latifundial system basically disappeared after the gothic war. All other minor landlords had probably just their 20 to 50 soldiers (in the baset case). A huge city like Mediolanum or the rich lagoon-cities (e.g. the area of Istria) were very likely able to deploy 500 to 800 men. During the reign of the goths it was basically forbidden to deploy private troops - but we all know the difference between "theory" and practical customs.

Concerning the catholic church we know that Pope Gregorius the Great wrote a letter (documentated in the epistulae) to the Exarchus in Ravenna with the request to send a Dux or a Magister Militum to defend the city from the Langobardi. This letter was sent round about 590 AD to the Exarch. So, we know that papal soldiers were stationed in Rome years before that date (we can assume 1 or 2 numeri), or better said imperial soldiers under the command of the pope (btw the beginning of a papal army) - but those soldiers were obviously so few in number that the pope was worried about the city's defence. I said we can assume that some units were stationed there - probably 1000 or 1600 strong. We know that because one time the Exarch came to visit Rome and it is documentated that all (whatever that means) Tribunes came to meet him in front of the city - with the banners in their hand. The term "All" means - at least in my opinion - a number of 2 units (or higher).

The only reported case of nobles which were temporarily able to deploy several thousand men are the Apions in Egypt, Belisarius (had round about 5000-8000 men deployed on his own) and Narses (I have to check the source again, but I think he also had more than 1000 men). The rest of the Roman officers were able to deploy on their own a numer between 100 and 400 (= Germanus) . It is a general exaggeration to believe that it was a "common" procedure that all officers had their own retinue more than 1000 strong. Another argument which is repeated like a mantra is about the Bucellarii of Aetius. We know that he had a retinue which was stronger than known from other officers of his time - but basically we are speaking about regular auxillaries - payed for a certain time X to serve the emperor. It was not his personal retinue - even if he (Aetius) handled them like that (this was another issue which brought him into conflict with Valentinian).

Therefore we can just speculate about the number of the personal retinue of Aetius (see Timo Stickler) - namely Comites and Armigeri. The greeks made the distinction between doriphoroi and (h)ypaspistai. But as said, the bulk of his enlistments or recruitments were just auxillaries. That what Belisarius did was to deploy many thousand men - but those men had sworn an oath on the emperor. Furthermore they were organized in regular Banda and Numeri. There is no indication that he deployed thousands of private retainers. Insofar we cannot speak about pure Bucellarii as well (like in the case of Aetius). After Belisarius was removed from his command - and this is evidenced - his troops were seamless given to Germanus, Narses and others.

So, the private deployment of troops must be analyzed individually in every case.