How did the Byzantines name their Units?

[Devodians]

This might be slightly later than the Rome II/DEI time period, but I've always wondered this. After the Roman ("Byzantine") military transitioned into the Thematic system under Heraclius and away from the Legionary system, how did they name their military units? Instead of calling a unit Legio II Italica or Legio IV Syriana, etc, would they have called it Thema Armenia or something?

In my Epirus campaign, my military includes almost as many Italian units as Greek ones, and my faction is basically a Greco-Italian Empire after taking Rome. Instead of having armies called random names like "The Champions of Athena," I am looking to rename my units to something else. Something a Greek speaking Roman successor state might have called their armies, even if it is a tad ahistorical.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

To be fair...

One of the things that is confusing things here is that the 'Roman' armies are given 'Legion' names when, in fact, they aren't really.

That the Romans start in 278 BC with the 'Camillan' structure is not probably correct anyway; but there's no real evidence of exactly when the 'Polybian' period armies started (although I am minded to suggest it's rather earlier - and I'm reading Livy now and will see if anything seems to suggest) - let alone that the, single paragraph of evidence, is not that enlightening anyway as to structure (given that the 'size' of a centuriae is not defined).

But, either way, just as it was in RTW originally, and even now with R2/DeI - at the scaling factor of 20 units to an 'army' - then the Consular Army is just that and, more or less at the beginning, you can have 2 x Consular Armies - one to stay at home whilst the other went on campaign. They would simply have been the 'armies of a particular consul'; so perhaps naming after the person on charge (the General indeed) would be more accurate. Thereafter, and for many hundreds of years, either that structure, or when later, a 'pair of legions plus auxiliaries' would be an 'army' under a Consul, or Praetor, or pro-Consul.

The next time the Romans changed is represented in the Notitia Dignitatum when the 'Dux' (modern Dukes and Duchies) appeared and they had 'Field Armies' - so it wouldn't have been wrong to call an army (in English) something like 'The Army of Gaul; and if your off to conquer Spain - then the 'Army of Spain' would do (not dissimilar to the names used in the Napoleonic period much later).

Which is all to say - there would be nothing wrong with naming your armies - 'the Thema of Italy' for example. The Latin for Army is 'Exercitus'; the Greek would be, perhaps, 'Stratia'; Persian would be 'Kara'; etc...

[Devodians]

Yeah, I forgot just how early on the DEI period is in Rome's history. Numbered legions probably did not come into existence until almost 200 years later, so as you said, calling a Camillian/Polybian army "Legio I Italica" or something would be ahistorical.
And since I destroyed the Romans before they even reached the Polybian reforms, real Legions never existed in my alternate timeline anyway.

Stratia, that was the word I was thinking of! That indeed would probably be the closest Greek equivalent to Legio.

[Marcelo005]

I see that in hannibal at the gates the roman army receives names like ''the champions of something'' and not ''Legio'', and this campaign you play with polybian units.

[Furgon]

I don't think this was right from the beginning. 'Legio' is the term referring to a regiment with defined structure and function. Army however, is not a regiment, it consists of just about anything you have and\or need. Therefore, if you imagine 20 unit stack is just a legio, it would be appropriate to move several stacks together at most times to imitate rl scale and that in it's turn would not fit right with the game limitations. So, instead of looking for authentic regimental terms, it's better to just stick with neutral names, "%charname%'s army" or "%theater of war% army" like Tedric suggested. The more generic, the better.

[nikossaiz]

name the army after the leading general would be the most proper indeed. Me from the other hand named an army from the province of founding. ex. stratos mikras sias ( army of asia minor ) , stratos makedonias , stratos thrakis ( army of thrace ) and so on. If my army is be leading by my faction leader and im an empire or close to it i name te army Autokratorikos stratos ( imperial army ) that way i can follow the legacy of itch army and knowing what kind of units usually have. ex "army of thrace" has a lot peltasts and thracian tribesmen and the army tradittions are like better planding, better scirmishing etch.

[Marcelo005]

Or perhaps the province who their are raised...

[Dago Red]

I use stratós, though stratia may be more grammatically correct (maybe a Greek speaker can clarify), with either region or city names usually. For example Stratos II Attike or Stratos IV Athenai. Some region or city names are too long, then use the other, or occasionally the name of a leader esp if he's leading it; Stratos I Attalus.

Whatever you do, Byzantine is not the preferred nomenclature, as no such thing ever existed until German revisionists invented it in the 17/1800s. Late Roman Empire or Eastern Roman Empire, as we say, "the ERE" is better.

[Marcelo005]

ur-Lord Tetric, i have a question, so why the archeologists and historians name the roman armies to ''legion''? like the legions who caesar used in gaul? did they have archeological evidences for this? or some roman historian?

[Jake Armitage]

There is a lot of original latin literature around, I don't know if Ceasar used the term legio in his De Bello Gallico, think so btw.

[ur-Lord Tedric]

ur-Lord Tetric, i have a question, so why the archeologists and historians name the roman armies to ''legion''? like the legions who caesar used in gaul? did they have archeological evidences for this? or some roman historian?

There is a lot of original latin literature around, I don't know if Ceasar used the term legio in his De Bello Gallico, think so btw.

Quick answer for the last - yes, Caesar certainly used the word 'legio' and legions, centuries and maniples certainly feature in his Commentaries (read them just a few weeks ago). He also specifically mentions having some 'auxiliaries' in the early part of his Gaul expedition - as Balaeric, Cretan & Numidian Slingers and Archers. There's also the Cavalry levied from his Gallic and later (smaller numbers) German allies.

Now, I'm not aware that there are "archeologists and historians" who particularly choose to name 'armies' as Legions when they aren't. Please do provide any particular examples.

In the earliest (just read last night) reference to separate armies, in 494BC Rome raised, for the first time, 10 legions to take on 3 separate threats. I believe this is before the auxiliary/Socii legions were established, but more reading needed, and we are not sure of the legion structure then - but that's probably some ~4,200 men per legion (given a classic Greek phalanx structure of 4,196 if they were still organised that way.) Those 10 were divided 3-ways; 3 to each Consul and 4 to the appointed Dictator - so that's each having an 'army'.

Much later, Caesar took over the Transalpine Gaul province where he found a legion on the Western border and 3 more wintering in Northern Italy; and he promptly levied 2 more. With these 6 legions he took on the Helvetii and, over the course of the next few years he added 2 and then 2 more legions for a total of 10 again. Once more, well after the Socii/Polybian period these are once again 5,000 strong legions (we believe). So, his 'Army of Gaul' consisted of 6-10 legions; some 'auxiliaries' and attached allied cavalry.

Another 100 years later, Aulus Plautius invaded Britain with 4 legions (probably some 5,300 men at that point) and a similar number of auxiliary infantry and cavalry.

So - Legions certainly existed, they were recruited from Roman Citizens (and hence different to the Auxilia (in general)) and they acquired specific numbers and names. They were permanently formed 'Brigades' of some 10 Cohorts/Battalions. Legions and attached 'Auxiliaries' (whether earlier Socii allies or later allies/mercenaries or Imperial auxiliary cohorts/ala (battalions of infantry and cavalry regiments) formed 'Armies' of various sizes when needed.

Hope that helps...

[Marcelo005]

Ok, thanks Ur-Lord Tetric!

Now, I'm not aware that there are "archeologists and historians" who particularly choose to name 'armies' as Legions when they aren't. Please do provide any particular examples.

I say that because legions are separated/organized like armies, or independent armies in the case.