Update on the Perge Tablets

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

https://www.academia.edu/4376305/Mon...u_Ferman%C4%B1

The summary is at the bottom. Basically it details a Legio Palatina unit in Perge numbering roughly 1550 to 1600 men.

Thanks to SeniorBatavianHorse for catching this update!

[Geronimo2006]

Seems to be written in Turkish. Is Perge a place or a historian? Whats the timeframe?

[Timhawk]

The timeframe is Anastasius I's reign, so 491 to 518 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasius_I_Dicorus
And I believe, this is Perge : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perga in modern day Turkey.

Anybody knows what bracchiati and Torquati are supposed to be in that context ? They are by far the most numerous categories*. With exactly 256 bracchiati which is a very interesting number in terms of hellenic legacy in the roman army.
Other interesting detail, the legion is led by a "tribunos", spelt in greek, rather than a chiliarchos which is usually the greek equivalent of a tribune in the literature.

Looking foward for a decent translation of the full work !

*edit: actually I just noticed there are also 140 so called "Flaviales alii" and 60 "Flaviales" plus some Augustales (alii and not alii) whatever they all are...

[wulfgar610]

With exactly 256 bracchiati which is a very interesting number in terms of hellenic legacy in the roman army.

Ian Heath's conclusion a generation ago was in later times the cohort finally mutated into a force of 256 rankers consisting 4 "centuries" of 64 rankers. This formation had a very strong component of archery. This was perhaps the typical regular numeri of the 5th century.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I guess they're some classification of veteran? I honestly don't know. Phillip Rance is supposed to do a translation and expand upon it soon.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Literary sources however indicate the Numerus was far larger, an Arithmos (Numerus) of Justinian's day in the Columbia Papyrii (#1548 I believe) had a strength of 508 men. Several other sources such as Zozimus and Olympiodorus indicate the Numerus numbered around 600 men, probably 640 (8 centuries) plus officers. That would put the strength of Justinian's Numerus at about 80% (which is about typical for the Late Roman army).

[wulfgar610]

This seems to be a formation that combines different types of units. Much of it might be cavalry going by the pay some of the rankers were getting. There's a number of non-combatant functionaries and men who were purely servants. This was a force that could operate independently and was perhaps typical of the 6 formations Honorius got from Illyria when the Goths were in Italy.

The personal seems to be 1,161 and the total of annona 2,769. I wonder what an annona was worth at the time? If the annona was worth 20 solidi each, that says 55,380 solidi.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

It was 20 Solidi, we have edicts of Anastasius that confirm this. Treadgold mentions them.

This was a force that could operate independently and was perhaps typical of the 6 formations Honorius got from Illyria when the Goths were in Italy.

You're getting the 5 legions sent from Illyria et Dalmatia (the Dalmatian Field Army) that were destroyed in 408 confused with the reinforcements sent to Ravenna by the East in 409 (6 Numeri totalling 4000 men). I have the references, in fact I have the quotes I'll post them in a little bit.

Also, according to Faith Onur (thanks to SBH once again):

I have just had some clarifications via PM on Facebook from Faith Onur in relation to the numbers. In terms of overall numbers, he has just confirmed via PM to me that the 'munifices' are the rankers in the legion but that the number listed on the 'C' slab has never been recovered from its original shattered state. A remnant number - ' . . . ?59' is all that is recoverableand may possibly refer to the munifices but whether that full number is 359, or 459, or 559, for example, is unknowable. Another missing number is that of the clerici and deputati, again missing from the fragments and unknowable.

Taking into account the missing or incomplete figures, the overall CONFIRMED numbers of the legion stand at exactly 1172 - if we add the missing clerici and deputati and the incomplete munifices we see where the provisional number of 1550-1600 comes from.

He also is keen to point out that his theory of Ioannes being the Magister and that the legion is a palatina one remains conjectural.

www.arkeolojisanat.com/.../monumentum-pergense_11...

[wulfgar610]

The point being that this was not a legion in the sense imagined of a pure force of close fighting infantry. This was a combined arms force with such a mass of cavalry that this was the main arm of a force were the infantry was now rather ordinary in quality. Indeed the obvious fact is this force operated independently.

In terms of overall numbers, he has just confirmed via PM to me that the 'munifices' are the rankers in the legion but that the number listed on the 'C' slab has never been recovered from its original shattered state. A remnant number - ' . . . ?59' is all that is recoverableand may possibly refer to the munifices but whether that full number is 359, or 459, or 559, for example, is unknowable. Another missing number is that of the clerici and deputati, again missing from the fragments and unknowable.

I'll go a good guess the munifices were non combatant service personal. Indeed 59 alone would be unlikely for a service personal figure. The service ratio to infantry was 1 to 8, and 1 to 4 cavalry at a minimum. The interesting thing is what service personal were paid?

Taking into account the missing or incomplete figures, the overall CONFIRMED numbers of the legion stand at exactly 1172 - if we add the missing clerici and deputati and the incomplete munifices we see where the provisional number of 1550-1600 comes from.

In other words a figure from thin air got you excited. My salient point has always been about the number of combatants. All armies through history had large numbers of service personal. For example what becomes of men too infirm to serve as soldiers, were they caste aside in a ditch or did they drive the armies oxen carts? Keeping a force supplied would be a full time job for a good number of men.

[Diocle]

Sorry but I need to ask just to understand the matter:

- Are we talking of less than 1000 soldiers and, in addition, more than 500 drivers of mules, servants, bakers and barbers and so on, registered as non combatant personnel but counted as part of the unit?

- Or are we talking of 1500 true soldiers? And in this case, where is the not combatant personnel?

I ask because actually .. the DIFFERENCE seems quite .. SUBSTANTIAL.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Or are we talking of 1500 true soldiers? And in this case, where is the not combatant personnel?

The tablets only concern combat personnel and officers because it is discussing the pay of soldiers, the Munifices are the standard soldiers (as they always have been in Latin). There is no indication of non-combat personnel (who would not be enrolled as regular soldiers by the way) in the text.

This was a combined arms force with such a mass of cavalry that this was the main arm of a force were the infantry was now rather ordinary in quality. Indeed the obvious fact is this force operated independently.

There is no evidence at all for a cavalry detachment being part of this unit in the Perge Fragments. Old Legionary Cavalry detachments became separate units the early 4th century. This was a purely infantry force.

Before commenting, please take time to actually the manuscript.

[wulfgar610]

This was a purely infantry force.

How do you know that?

Flaviales alii 140 kişi 3 annona’dan

This is a large unit receiving pay typical of cavalry in an era when cavalry had become dominant. The equivalent to the infantry century was the cavalry turma of about 32 men, and there's a few there that are multiples of that.

These seem to refer to separate units in many cases because the following has a precise known strength of a Byzantine infantry unit.

Bracchiati semissales 256 kişi 1,5 annona’dan

The case in point is the guy has no idea what they were. He thinks legio palatina because he suffers from incurable legio palatina diease.

What is known is the commander had been keeping pay and entitlements for himself. Selling commissions and filling rank file with town drunks. All of which was still standard practice in the 18th century British army.

On the basis of my recent research on Text C, it seems that the total number of men listed in the schedule was no less than 1550-1600, in consequence, this was a large unit, apparently consistent with the numbers in a
legio
of the
comitatenses
(see p. 124). In my preliminary reports (Onur 2012a, 269; Onur 2012b, 36), I had suggested that the unit in the Perge inscription is a
legio palatina
and that the
magister

militum
in question should be identified as a
magister militum praesentalis
, probably Flavius Ioannes (
PLRE
II 617-619, s.v. Fl. Ionnes
qui et
Gibbus 93). However, given the current state of the evidence, this opinion cannot be conclusively proved.

What strange people in the universe assume that infantry wandered around without cavalry support in an era dominated by cavalry? I've raised this concern before.

[Timhawk]

I'd also argue that this was a combined arms formation. I don't really know much about roman ranks in that period, but googling veredarii, I got 2 kinds of results.
1/ some sort of imperial messengers, but since there are 275 of them (including the "others/alii)", that can't be it.
2/ veredarii apparently comes from veredus http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/veredarius#Latin which can be a "fast or light breed of horse".

I'd say that between 1/4 and 1/6th of this legion was made up of ligh cavalry.* actually no, see end note

I'd make a 2nd guess, that there were 10 ordines of infantry about 120 strong each, led by an ordinarius and 10 ordo of cavalry about 30(27+1 Vexilarius+ 1 ordinarius+?) strong, also led by an ordinarius. Which gives a neat 1500.

I'd like to point out that a ratio of 1/4 was fairly common in roman military affairs, especially when it came to cavalry/infantry ratios.

----------------------------------------------------
Edit:
Here's a very useful link posted on RAT:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=h...geandlydus.pdf

My attemps to deduce a TO&E:

**Legio Command Staff:
1 Tribunus Numeri
1 Tribunus Minor
3 Mensores (camp surveyor)
4 Beneficiarii
2 Tubicines
2 Librarii
1 Praeco (herald http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/praeco)
X Clerici ve Deputati
...

*Infantry:
10 Ordines
10 Optiones
10 Signiferi
10 Imaginiferi
2 Tubicines
8 Cornicines
120 Augustales (including the "alii")
200 Flaviales (including the "alii") On 2nd thoughts, they have to be Cavalry. *
20 Armaturae Duplares
20 Armaturae Semissales
136 Torquati semissales
256 Brachiati semissales
Y Munifices
....

*Cavalry
10 Ordines
10 Vexilarii
120 Augustales (including the "alii")
200 Flaviales (including the "alii")
275 Veredarii
2 Bucinatores
....

*As Wulfgar pointed out, their pay is more consistent with cavalry, their number works well with multiple of 30-32 and I'd identify the Augustales with the 4 turmae of cavalry present in Legions since Augustus and the Flaviales with the extra cavalry added by Vespasianus (all of which happened about 500 years before ! See the document above for the Vegetius reference to them).
Unfortunately, it is inconsistent with my 1 cav to 4 inf ratio from earlier. This seems to have been a particularly cav heavy formation. Between 1/2 and 1/3 ?

** I'm now wondering whether the veredarii could be some sort of light/select infantry and the successor of the velites, antesignani, lanceari.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I'm going to wait until Phillip Rance publishes before I really delve into it simply because I can't read Turkish or Medieval Greek.

[wulfgar610]

Anybody knows what bracchiati and Torquati are supposed to be in that context ?

Honorifics and tribal names.

The timeframe is Anastasius I's reign, so 491 to 518

Pretty much why cavalry is the dominant element. The old style foot legionarie was annihilated at Adrianople never to be resurrected as told by Colin McEvedy. The Romans found that their method of warfare was then hopelessly obsolete when defeated utterly by a Barbarian army which was essentially a light force that was also inferior in numbers. But a Barbarian army that had learned the latest methods of cavalry warfare techniques and equipment from the steppes. At some point in the 100 years that followed Arianople, the Roman army had transformed into one where cavalry had become the main arm. This is more important than observed at first glance. Because up until that point the command headquarters was associated with the senior cohort of foot.

With the Perge regiment the command headquaters was now associated with the senior echelon of cavalry in the Augustales. The highest ranking one serving as the commaders bodyguard. After that we got at least 18 turma of cavalry. With flag bearers, signifiers, musicians all mounted. These were important because this is how the army communicated on the battlefield, and something the Romans generally had over the Barbarians. It is worth noting at this point that being regular cavalry they fully capable of dismounting and fighting on foot when required.

After that we got two small main bodies of infantry, one with 4 centuries and one with 2 centuries. These were one and a half pay men which indicates they were mobile infantry rather than border troops. This seems to be a very important designation. Unlike the now obsolete legionarie these infantry were primarily spear-men and archers, without a spiculum to be seen among them. Their sole role was to back up the cavalry.

The Armature are field engines.....the weapons despised and feared by Barbarians.

The Munifices were logistics staff, cooks, craftsmen, etc. In a good deal of cases they were probably troops that had become infirm for combat duty, but still up to serve their full term. These men were still probably armed but probably only fit as camp defenders. And I agree that there were probably way more of them than 59.

This is the new model army and my guess is it was there from the very beginning of the 5th century.

I'm going to wait until Phillip Rance publishes before I really delve into it simply because I can't read Turkish or Medieval Greek

Why wait, when you have old Wulfie?

This was a purely infantry force. Before commenting, please take time to actually (read) the manuscript.

Don't take up drinking whatever you do!

[wulfgar610]

My take on it is this.

3 turma of Augustales Alii, Guard Cavalry with one slightly senior to the other two. The "Alii" denotes men of non Roman origin, they could speak Latin with an accent. These were cavalrymen inducted into elite formation on the basis of their quality. Some might have been genuine Latins but of barbarian ancestry. But in any case people with thick accents were predominant.

6 turma of Flaviales. Line Heavy cavalry. 2 of which were rated as Latins, 4 with thick accents.

9 turma of Veredarii. Line Light cavalry. 2 of which were rated as Latins, 7 with thick accents.

2 centuries of Torquati semissales.

4 centuries of Bracchiati semissales.

Field army infantry paid at 1.5 annonia. 64 strong centuries typically of spearmen and archers.

2 units Amaturae, Field Army Artillery with one of senior quality. They could probably use a variety of artillery. But in field battles a total 10 light bolt shooters. Unlike TW these couldn't win battles on their own, but would significantly "soften up" the opponent.

An indeterminate number of munifices. These men could be armed, but were at best only capable of defending fortifications or the camp.

This is a "Byzantine" army and different to Diocletian's 4th century army.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

We know from other sources though that Armaturae was not the term for artillery/artillerymen though, that term was "Tragularii" according to Ammianus, and also possibly "Ballistarii" remained in use.

IIRC Armaturae were skirmishing units, but I'm not sure on that.

[wulfgar610]

We know from other sources though that Armaturae was not the term for artillery/artillerymen though, that term was "Tragularii" according to Ammianus, and also possibly "Ballistarii" remained in use.

IIRC Armaturae were skirmishing units, but I'm not sure on that.

Good point MMFA, I'm well aware that Armaturae could be designated as skirmishers. But the word can also be used to mean "engine". The reason I think these were those that operated artillery is because there is nothing else in the list and I don't think they would be absent. Being field troops their minimum pay would be 1.5x

Light bolt shooters were weapons a little too heavy to hand hold and so used a stand, other than that they mobile enough on the battle field. But these men could use heavier artillery when required.

As for skirmishers the archers of the infantry centuries would most certainly operate as detachments of skirmishers that could retreat behind the spearmen when necessary. But in general that role was now very well covered by the light cavalry, who could operate as foot skirmishers as terrain demanded. If Vegetiaus is anything to go by considerable effort was put into making cavalry dismount as infantry in quick order if terrain circumstances demanded it or the horses were exhausted. Always remember most Roman cavalry could fight equally well on foot and were infantrymen if that was what was required. For all I know Roman cavalry might have dismounted as infantry in the face of enemy if the cavalry charge had lost momentum, rather than retire.

These were all trained troops, perhaps not as fierce as some of their opponents. But well organized and trained in complex maneuvers and battle evolutions.

[Timhawk]

Are you all sure armaturae would be skirmishers ? If it was specified that they were"Levis armaturae" I'd agree, but based on Lydius and Vegetius it seems to me they were some sort of weapons/fighting instructors:
"Those who, expert in their exercises, receive a double allowance of provisions, are called Armaturae Duplares, and those who have but a single portion, Simplares." Vegetius II.7
I have never encountered armatura as any kind of engines either. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...=levis#lexicon

As for the munifices, I don't see any reason to think they are anything but rankers. Vegetius II,7 makes it pretty clear.



A little more background on the tablets (you even have a picture of said tablets at the end):
https://www.academia.edu/2898696/The...iminary_Report
Now I know why the end of the tablet isn't as clear as the top.

[wulfgar610]

"Those who, expert in their exercises, receive a double allowance of provisions, are called Armaturae Duplares, and those who have but a single portion, Simplares." Vegetius II.7

Unfortunately Vegetius doesn't tell us what they are, as though their name is self explanatory. I doubt they were trainers, because the lesser paid examples only received the pay of lower ranks. The question is, what were they expert in?

I have never encountered armatura as any kind of engines either.

It is also used to describe engines, along with weapons and armor. In terms of engines, it means something that is drawn or coiled ready to release energy. If you draw back your bolt engine, it is "armed". We still use the word borrowed into English.

As for the munifices, I don't see any reason to think they are anything but rankers. Vegetius II,7 makes it pretty clear.

They only things he makes clear is they were workmen, and they were service personal. Soldier simply means those who are paid. Even today a non-combatant servicemen are still called soldiers. My problem is their pay, this was some kind of field regiment. Line troops get one and a half pay as minimum. These apparently only got the base annona.

The rest are called Munifices, or working soldiers, from their being obliged to every kind of military work without exception.