I'm wondering what your views on this are. I am open to a lot of Nischer's old arguments, but I think he's wrong in attributing the first-stage reorganization to Diocletian and the other tetrarchs, and a completely separate second-stage reorganization to Constantine. I do think there were two stages, but the second stage had begun in the 290s and 300s; there are papyri giving lower strengths for the border legions in 297-300 [as interpreted by Duncan-Jones], and an inscription referring to the Batavi from 303 [Speidel].
As it is, it can be increasingly difficult to estimate which legions existed at any time after 235; some were destroyed, others were formed, and some are only weakly attested. A few may be reorganizations/redesignations of older legions, especially given the profusion of Flavian legions and absence of Galerian ones in the Notitia.
Quote:See http://www.ancient-warfare.com/cms/issue...e-v-4.html
That looks like a very interesting article, Duncan. Unfortunately, I'm not very interested in Assyrians, so don't fancy buying that particular issue.
Any chance you could give us a brief precis of your position? ;-) (I may have asked you this before...)
Meanwhile, the October issue of
Ancient Warfare is actually called 'The Army of Diocletian'! Will certainly be getting that one...
Marja - what's the 'inscription referring to the Batavi from 303' you mentioned?
Speidel cites it in "Raising New Units for the Late Roman Army: Auxilia Palatina" in Dumbarton Oaks Papers in 1996, along with discussions of the Regii and the Cornuti.
I didn't copy down the whole thing, but it is from Brigetio, and Speidel dates it to July 303, and it opens:
Iovi Optimo Maximo
Aurelius Ianuarius
Tribunus Batavorum, Vir Perfectissimus, Dux, ...
I ought to outline my own estimate of the number, location, and identity of the Tetrarchan legions soon, but I've been struggling with arm injuries lately.
Quote:Speidel cites it in "Raising New Units for the Late Roman Army: Auxilia Palatina" in Dumbarton Oaks Papers
Thanks - actually I remember I have read that one (it's on
JSTOR)
The inscription just mentions a t(ribunus) Bat(avorum) - which means there was a unit called Batavi in the army in 303. Not necessarily auxilia palatina (or anything like) though - Speidel tries to turn them into elite guards by suggesting that Diocletian travelled via Brigetio on his way to Rome from Sirmium that summer. But why would he - Brigetio's in the other direction isn't it?
I don't fault Speidel's initial point - there clearly were units (probably 'irregular') of barbarians in the army of Diocletian and Maximian, and probably of Aurelian and Probus too. Some of these probably evolved into the auxilia palatina of the mid 4th century. But we don't know at what point this evolution occured or how long it took, and I don't think Speidel provides enough evidence to claim it for the pre-Constantinian era.
Quote:A few may be reorganizations/redesignations of older legions, especially given the profusion of Flavian legions and absence of Galerian ones in the Notitia.
Which 'Galerian legions' were you thinking of?
Re: 'Galerian legions'
Of the first four Tetrarchs, there are known legions named after Diocletianus [the Iovii], Maximianus [the Herculii], and Constantius Chlorus [some of the Flavii*], but as far as I'm aware, none named after Galerius. I suspect that there might originally have been units named after Galerius, but that Constantinus I or his successors may have renamed such units, as well as any named after Severus, Maxentius, Maximinus Daia, or Licinius.
*I think a case can be made that the I Flavia Pacis and II Flavia Virtutis are derived from Tetrarchan border legions in Germania Prima, and III Flavia Salutis may be part of the same group. Similarly-named milites [Pacensium, Secundae Flavia] survived under the Dux Mogantiacensis.
Quote:I am open to a lot of Nischer's old arguments, but I think he's wrong in attributing the first-stage reorganization to Diocletian and the other tetrarchs, ...
Parker's
1933 paper is a splendid antidote to Nischer. (What a pity he went off to do Civil Service stuff after the war.)
Quote:Any chance you could give us a brief precis of your position? ;-)
Ritterling is always a good place to start. Here's his suggested legionary deployment "after Diocletian's reorganization":
[attachment=5208]Ritterling_Diocletian.jpg[/attachment]
Quote:I suspect that there might originally have been units named after Galerius, but that Constantinus I or his successors may have renamed such units, as well as any named after Severus, Maxentius, Maximinus Daia, or Licinius.
[edit due to prior confusion!] - It's only assumption that those legions named 'Flavia' were raised by Constantius. Surely they could have been Constantinian, or later? Diocletian and Maximian named legions after themselves and their 'houses' (Jovian and Herculean), but unless we can prove that Galerius also raised legions (Valerian?), then we don't know that either Caesar would or could have done so.
Maxentius certainly raised new units (legions?), and these would probably have been renamed - I'd really like to know what they might have been called, bearing in mind Maxentius' regional focus, love of Roman tradition and veneration of Mars: Legions I-IV Martia Romuliana, perhaps? Legions V-VI Valeria Siciliana? Legion VII Africa Victrix? :grin:
Quote:Parker's 1933 paper is a splendid antidote to Nischer.
Yep, the argument here makes a lot of sense.
I also think that the evidence for tetrarchic legion vexillations (mentioned by Parker) argues against any substantial reduction in 'official' legion size at this time. He cites the Egyptian vexillations of c.293, all drawn from the Danube army, and an inscription from Aquiliea of a soldier of XI Claudia who died in Mauretania, presumably under Maximian in 298. There's another inscription, from Mauretania itself (CIL 08, 08440) which mentions a vexillation of II Herculia constructing a Mithraeum. The vexillation is stated as comprising cohorts VII and X. So the new legion II Herculia still had ten cohorts, and was not the limited formation suggested, I think, by Coello (1996) based on the size of its supposed fort on the Danube!
I suspect, actually, that the initial formation of Herculiani and Joviani comprised only two legions, each of 6000 men as Vegetius says, named I Jovia and II Herculia and based in Moesia Inferior. These legions (perhaps initially raised from veteran cadres from all the other Danube legions) might have been intended from the start as a source for vexillations: the two cohorts of II Herculia under Maximian appear to be complemented by another detachment of the legion under Diocletian in Egypt at the same time, and another under Galerius (if we can assume the Herculean shields on his arch represent this legion).
Perhaps, then, each of the four tetrarchic emperors had two cohorts each of I Jovia and II Herculia in his personal field force, with the remaining two cohorts of each legion remaining back on the Danube as a 'depot'? Later, these vexillations became units in their own right, with some being retained as palatine legions (iuniores and seniores) and the rest being sent back to the frontiers and renumbered I-VI Jovia or Herculia respectively. There are certainly a lot more inscriptions from the (original?) I and II than any of the others...
I've read Parker. I agree with many of his criticisms, and I don't accept Nischer's detailed reconstruction with full-strength legions in several reserve groups, or Nischer's chronology with the field armies only dating to Constantinus I. I do think Nischer's paper explains a two-stage model pretty well, and in detail, explains a whole series of 'provincial' legionary designations, explains some of the pseudocomitatenses but not all, and so on.
My best guess, is that there were about 39 legions in 284 and about 64 in 305.
If we set aside the Flavian units, not counting them with either group, there are many Tetrarchan border legions (I Iovia, II Herculia, V Iovia, VI Herculia, I Noricorum, etc.) and few post-Tetrarchan border legions (I Valentiniana, II Valentiniana). It's quite likely that some of the Flavian units were post-Tetrarchan; the Flavians had more time than their successors. It's also quite likely that the separation between Limitanei/Ripenses and Comitatenses and Palatini ended a Tetrarchan approach of forming the field armies of out detachments from the border armies and probably forming new border armies by detaching units from the field armies.
Maxentius certainly had an extremely large army. Zosimus counted it as 188,000 troops, and one of the Panegyrici Latini said that he had more than 100,000 troops in Italy while giving much smaller figures to Constantinus.
At best guess, Maxentius had a relatively small share of the border army. He had the Praetorian Guard and perhaps 2 to 7 out of 64 border legions, and that's being generous:
VII Gemina in Hispania
III Augusta and perhaps another unidentified legion in Africa.
III Italica in Raetia, but Licinius may well have controlled the province.
I Iulia Alpina, II Iulia Alpina, and III Iulia Alpina, if the Claustra had already been formed.
But Maxentius had a remarkably large share of the field army. He had defeated Severus and Galerius and most of their armies had gone over. So he might have focused on bringing the field army up to strength and making it more independent of the border armies.
Quote:At best guess, Maxentius... had the Praetorian Guard and perhaps 2 to 7 out of 64 border legions
The Praetorians are last mentioned as having ten cohorts late in Diocletian's reign, but several may have been away from Rome with the emperors (this is debatable). By the time of the Maxentian coup they were only
pauci milites (Lactantius), but I suspect one of Maxentius's first acts may have been to rebuild the Guard, his principal supporters, to their full traditional strength.
That would give him 10,000 praetorians, and the Equites Singulares too. Besides this, as you say, he appears to have had the full field army of Severus, and at least part of Galerius's as well. (Many of the troops in Severus' old force would have had comrades from the same legions in Constantine's army! The loyalties of the soldiers at this time are fascinating, but unknowable).
The addition of mass levies from Italy and Africa, whether grouped into legion formations or not, could well have raised the total army to more than 100,000.
As for the 'border' legions:
VII Gemina - Maxentius didn't control Spain. However, Severus's field army is described as 'African' at one point, presumably meaning that they were same force that Maximian took to Mauretania in 298. So a vexillation of VII Gemina may have been included (perhaps also XI Claudia? Even II Herculia?)
III Augusta and perhaps another unidentified legion in Africa - The IIIrd were presumably the force that had recently rebelled against Maxentius under Domitius Alexander. Would they be sufficiently loyal by 312? And where does the suggested other legion come from?
III Italica in Raetia, but Licinius may well have controlled the province. - This is interesting. There are, as you know, a series of tombstones to soldiers of II
Italica Divitensis scattered down the line of the Via Flaminia. It's very tempting to regard these as Constantinian soldiers who fell on the march to Rome. Two are from Ocriculum - but one of the soldiers in question is Raetian, and only enlisted five years previously! So perhaps Constantine already controlled Raetia in 307... Men of III Italica, meanwhile, may have featured in Severus' field army, as before.
I Iulia Alpina, II Iulia Alpina, and III Iulia Alpina - what are the chances of these three being pre-Constantinian though? The Iulia name suggests either Crispus or Constantius II - or are there prior possibilities, do you think?
VII Gemina - I've seen contradictory info about who controlled Spain.
III Augusta and perhaps another unidentified legion - Given that the garrison in Aegyptus increased to about six legions, counting the second V Macedonica and second XIII Gemina, the garrisons elsewhere in North Africa may also have increased.
III Italica - I know there were conflicts between Maxentius and Licinius before 312.
I Iulia Alpina, II Iulia Alpina, III Iulia Alpina - I don't know when these are first attested. If they are named after an emperor loosely or nominally associated with the gens, why not Philippus Arabus? I think there was more of a threat to Italy in his time than in Constantinus's time, maybe Constantius's time. If they were named after the mountains, and associated with the Claustra Alpium Iuliarum (?), then the imperial names are a false lead.
It's possible that those three legions are Tetrarchan or pre-Tetrarchan. It's possible that any of these legions are in Maxentius' army - I doubt all 7 were under his control, but although any of them are in question, I suspect at least 2 were.
If the border legions have already been reduced to about 1,000 each, then they are a small part of the border forces. But they are a useful gauge to estimate the distribution of border forces. If Zosimus' estimates are at all close to the total strengths, then the distribution of all forces between the emperors has ceased to resemble the distribution of the border legions and the border forces.
Quote:I've seen contradictory info about who controlled Spain.
I'd thought it was fairly clear, actually - Spain had originally fallen to Maximian's sphere of influence when he was western Augustus. But when Constantius became Augustus he took over Spain, leaving Italy, Africa and Raetia to Severus (this is in one of the sources - Lactantius? - I think). So Constantine would have inherited Spain - and Maxentius surely lacked the strength in 306 to take it off him.
Quote:If the border legions have already been reduced to about 1,000 each
As I say, I think it's unlikely!
Vexillations of V Macedonia and IV Flavia were operating in Egypt in 293, of IV Flavia, VII and XI Claudia in Palestine in 295, and XI Claudia and II Herculia in Mauretania in 298 - these Danubian 'border' legions must have had more than 1000 men each to be split up like that. Far more likely that the vexillations were 1000-strong (two cohorts, like those of the Herculiani in Mauretania) and the full legions themselves still at something like their traditional 5-6 thousand, albeit seldom if ever all in the same place!
Additional to that last point - the legions of the Danube were very important to the Tetrarchic emperors, and it's perhaps not surprising that they form the backbone of most imperial field armies and task forces of the period. It's quite possible, then, that these Danubian legions were kept up to full strength as a manpower reserve, while legions in other places (Britain, for example, after the Carausian war) may have already become significantly depleted.
Also, on the subject of Maxentius's army - there's nothing to suggest that II Parthica wasn't still at Albanum at this time. They appear on Carausius's legion coinage, so presumably sent a vexillation to join Maximian, originally (along with the ubiquitous Danubians IV Flavia and VII Claudia!), and were not in the east at the time. So Maxentius could have added them to his numbers.
Agreed on the importance of the Danubian legions, but still unconvinced about the strength. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 43 lists Danubian legions in the field army in Egypt. It's not complete, but mentions Herculii and Palatini in column vi and the XI Claudia in column ii, and the IV Flavia and VII Claudia in column v, among others.
Almost all the Rhine and Danube border legions contribute field army legions. The Divitenses and Tungrecani, though probably formed from pre-Tetrarchan vexillationes, each contribute two field-army legions. Most others contribute one. According to Nischer, the provinces with two legions contribute one additional field-army legion named after the province (Scythae, Moesiaci Iuniores, Daci, Moesiaci Seniores, etc.) and those with only one border legion contribute one field-army auxilium (Sequani, Raeti), but Nischer has to introduce a fourth legion in Britain to make his theory work there. Scythia Minor turns out to be about average for the Danubian frontiers, with two border legions (I Iovia and II Herculia) and three field-army legions (probably Iovii Seniores, Herculii Seniores, and Scythae). Pannonia Secunda also has two border legions (V Iovia and VI Herculia) yielding three field-army legions (probably Iovii Iuniores, Herculii Iuniores, and Pannoniciani Iuniores) although it's possible that linked the wrong Iovii or the wrong Herculii with each other.
I figure that these legions must have been at least 2,000 strong when formed, since they contribute at least 1,000 to the field army and retain at least 1,000 in the border army.