I am currently analyzing Zosimus and his terminology regarding units and ranks of the post-Constantinian era is interesting. I was not familiar with the period and after making the query about the Batavian legion, I realized that this thread was actually most relevant to my current endeavors.
I am now done with the first three books of Zosimus, started the fourth and up until now, he consistently uses the terms :
tagma for what seem to be the largest military units within an army (which he consistently calls stratopaedon). The term is consistent with what in older times is definitely a legion. Rarely he also uses the term telos, which in Greek literature is a synonym to the tagma and should also be identified as a legion. However, this latter term (up till now), he has only used for pre-Constantinian legions.
As ranks, he mentions :
taxiarchos, lochagos and dekadarchos (leader of 10), although, I have only met lochos as a unit.
It is interesting that the units responsible for the undermining of a certain wall during Julian's Persian campaign were the lochoi of the Mattiarii, the Lacciarii (possibly meaning Lanciarii) and the Victores. Now I read someplace that in ND, the Mattiarii are a Palatine Legion, like the Batavians as Evan kindly pointed out to me. However, the Batavians Zosimus calls a tagma, "properly" classifying as a legion.
It is also intriguing that I did not meet the term chiliarchos which would be the equivalent of an older military tribune, a rank that might have been replaced by the taxiarchos, which in older works is a rank difficult to pinpoint as it can mean centurion, military tribune or anything in between, however, it always does bear a higher significance than the lochagos rank.
In all, I would at the moment dare suggest that according to Zosimus, a Roman army would include tele (legions) and lochoi (lesser units) with a good probability for the lochoi to also have been subunits of the telos apart from possible detached, independent units like the auxiliary cohorts of older times.
Regarding cavalry he mentions units called ilae (sing. ile), one (in Strasburg) given as 600 men strong.
Quote:tagma for what seem to be the largest military units within an army . . . The term is consistent with what in older times is definitely a legion.
I would be interested in your conclusions when you get to Books 5 and 6. At Bk. 5.45.1, Zosimus refers to five
tagmata totalling 6000 men (Ridley translates these as 'legions'); at Bk. 6.8.2, he refers to six
tagmata totalling 4000 men (Ridley translates these as 'cohorts'). Thus, according to him, a
tagma could number 1200 or approximately 660 men.
I just looked at the refs, they are indeed two of the rare (hitherto) occasions that Zosimus makes any connection to the terms with actual numbers and I first have to point out -without being yet able to place the refs in their correct context- that the second one does not say 4,000 but 40,000 (at least in the TLG copy).
"μυριάδων ἀριθμὸν ὄντα τεσσάρων." - "their myriad number being four"
It is also interesting that an online translation gives the above number as 6,000 and your translation 4,000.... We have to look at the possible versions for a better understanding.
Quote:the Batavians Zosimus calls a tagma, "properly" classifying as a legion... I would at the moment dare suggest that according to Zosimus, a Roman army would include tele (legions) and lochoi (lesser units) with a good probability for the lochoi to also have been subunits of the telos
The Batavi, as Mark mentioned on your other thread, were
auxilia palatina, therefore most likely a
numerus. If the
tribunus batavorum mentioned on an inscription from Brigetio of AD303 commanded the same unit, they may have been one of the earliest of these new auxilia formations.
I mentioned above the vexillations of II Italica Divitensium, which was apparently organised as an old-style legion with ten cohorts. This same formation probably became the later Divitenses Seniores, one of the most senior
legiones palatinae on the new model according to the Notitia Dignitatum.
But there are a couple of inscriptions from Thrace mentioning a
numerus Divitensium, including one (AE 2006, 1256) for "
Flavius Felix signifer de numero Divitensium vixit annos XXX civis Ambianensis". This may be a different body of troops from Divita (Deutz) who somehow found their way to a battle in Thrace, but the man was from Amiens, so the field army legion seems more likely.
Apart from the note that these later numeri contained signifers (and so therefore
centuriae?), this might suggest that a legion could also be referred to as a
numerus... which might mean that the entire nomenclatura of later army units was very mutable... So Zosimus's
tagma could refer to either an
auxilium or a
legione (if there really was any practical difference between them!), or a
numerus of either sort... :unsure:
Quote:The Batavi, as Mark mentioned on your other thread, were auxilia palatina, therefore most likely a numerus. If the tribunus batavorum mentioned on an inscription from Brigetio of AD303 commanded the same unit, they may have been one of the earliest of these new auxilia formations.
I mentioned above the vexillations of II Italica Divitensium, which was apparently organised as an old-style legion with ten cohorts. This same formation probably became the later Divitenses Seniores, one of the most senior legiones palatinae on the new model according to the Notitia Dignitatum.
But there are a couple of inscriptions from Thrace mentioning a numerus Divitensium, including one (AE 2006, 1256) for "Flavius Felix signifer de numero Divitensium vixit annos XXX civis Ambianensis". This may be a different body of troops from Divita (Deutz) who somehow found their way to a battle in Thrace, but the man was from Amiens, so the field army legion seems more likely.
Apart from the note that these later numeri contained signifers (and so therefore centuriae?), this might suggest that a legion could also be referred to as a numerus... which might mean that the entire nomenclatura of later army units was very mutable... So Zosimus's tagma could refer to either an auxilium or a legione (if there really was any practical difference between them!), or a numerus of either sort... :unsure:
There are 5 tribunis cohortis without stations given in pannonia prima (i.e. where Brigetio is) in 425 AD in the Notitia Dignitatum.
The Batavi Seniores et Iuniores are listed as Auxilia Palatina under the Praesental Field Army in Italy, then under the command of Flav. Con. Felix in 425.
The listing of a Tribunis Cohortis Batavorum in 303 probably refers to the Cohortis Primae Batavorum from Batavis in Noricum, not the Tribe/Auxilia Palatina unit.
Late Roman nomenclature was probably very mutable, as many officials would have absolutely no clue how the army worked. If Flavius Aetius wrote a treatise on the Roman Army would look very different from if Valentinian III wrote one. (Hence probably in part why Vegetius' treatise was so heavily classicized)
Quote:I first have to point out -without being yet able to place the refs in their correct context- that the second one does not say 4,000 but 40,000 (at least in the TLG copy).
"μυριάδων ἀριθμὸν ὄντα τεσσάρων." - "their myriad number being four"
An old Teubner edition on the Internet Archive has
χιλιάδων αριθμον οντα τεσσάρων (I can't get all the diacriticals in) and presumably it was a similar text that Ridley was using. However, the apparatus makes it look as if this is an emendation. If your text is correct, it makes a
tagma oνer 6600 strong.
Quote:There are 5 tribunis cohortis without stations given in pannonia prima... a Tribunis Cohortis Batavorum in 303 probably refers to the Cohortis Primae Batavorum from Batavis in Noricum, not the Tribe/Auxilia Palatina unit.
Batavis was just over the border in Raetia, and the unit there was novae Batavorum (primae was in Britain, apparently), but otherwise yes, I thought that too! :wink:
However, the tribune in question seems to have been promoted directly from his Batavian command to Dux Pannoniae, so I would guess (tribune too being rather a 'mutable' term!) that he was more likely to have commanded a numerus of prestigious new-style auxilia than a lowly old-style auxiliary unit (his title didn't mention a cohort). But who knows...
The relevant sections of the ND do mention cohorts in relation to legions, though -
Praefectus legionis primae adiutricis cohortis quintae partis superioris, Breg(e)tione, for example. Suggesting that the old limitanei legions on the frontiers were still organised on traditional lines, with cohorts.
So the question remains: were the new-style 'field legions' of the comitatensis and palatinae divided into cohorts, or did they use some other internal organisation?
Quote:many officials would have absolutely no clue how the army worked. If Flavius Aetius wrote a treatise on the Roman Army would look very different from if Valentinian III wrote one.
Very true!
Well I and II Adiutricis no longer existed, they were merely rosters for the various officials to be classified as members of, as is shown in the Codex Theodosianus and the Codex Iustinianus.
Yes, Novae Batavorum, thank you. However I honestly doubt the citizens knew they were in Raetia, just look at the vita sancti severini.
I think that some units mya have had cohortes, others numerii, others just centuries. Hard to say. Hopefully something may come out of the Perge tablets soon.
Quote: The listing of a Tribunis Cohortis Batavorum in 303 probably refers to the Cohortis Primae Batavorum from Batavis in Noricum, not the Tribe/Auxilia Palatina unit.
As it happens, Batavis/Passau was named after a cohort of Batavi in the first place. I would propose that 'Batavorum' can only refer to the original cohortes Batavorum that were spread out across the empire, originally all recruited from the Batavi tribe. The auxilia were in turn named after the cohots or even with a reference to the original tribe, which we see with other new style units at this time. I don't think they were manned by soldiers from Batavis, or soldiers with an ethnic link to the old Batavi tribe/civitas.
Quote:Late Roman nomenclature was probably very mutable, as many officials would have absolutely no clue how the army worked. If Flavius Aetius wrote a treatise on the Roman Army would look very different from if Valentinian III wrote one. (Hence probably in part why Vegetius' treatise was so heavily classicized)
Absolutely. If you look at how the supreme command (magister militum etc etc ) is used in military documantation alone, you understand how easy it is to mix up far more complex names in sources written by civilians.
Quote:The relevant sections of the ND do mention cohorts in relation to legions, though - Praefectus legionis primae adiutricis cohortis quintae partis superioris, Breg(e)tione, for example. Suggesting that the old limitanei legions on the frontiers were still organised on traditional lines, with cohorts.
That is correct: legiones, cohortes, alae, numeri etc, all with the old style command structure.
Quote:I would propose that 'Batavorum' can only refer to the original cohortes Batavorum that were spread out across the empire, originally all recruited from the Batavi tribe. The auxilia were in turn named after the cohorts...
Or recruited from
laeti settled on the old territories of the Batavi tribe, perhaps?
In the case of the
tribunus Batavorum, I still think that he held a higher position that cohort commander. If this was a cohort, he would surely have give the designation (
tribunus cohortis novae batavorum, for example). Plus the direct promotion to Dux would be unusual!
More likely that he was either tribune of the mounted guard unit called the
Batavi (similar to Aurelius Valentinus, mentioned by M Speidel in
Riding for Caesar p.86, who was also given a provincial
vir perfectissimus command at the time of Gallienus), or an early tribune of the
auxilia palatina Batavi (the seniores/iuniores division had not yet happened at this point). We know that the auxilia were commanded by tribunes - Bainobaudes and the future emperor Valens were both tribunes of the Cornuti.
Quote:Or recruited from laeti settled on the old territories of the Batavi tribe, perhaps?
Although possible I would say that this is a bit too early for that. When we accept that the palatine Batavi date to the early 4th c. or even earlier, there are not yet Laeti who were settled in the old Batavi civitas.
Quote:In the case of the tribunus Batavorum, I still think that he held a higher position that cohort commander. If this was a cohort, he would surely have give the designation (tribunus cohortis novae batavorum, for example). Plus the direct promotion to Dux would be unusual!
Agreed on both counts (although the exact title of a tribune could vary wildly). The guy must have been very well-connected!
Quote:More likely that he was either tribune of the mounted guard unit called the Batavi (similar to Aurelius Valentinus, mentioned by M Speidel in Riding for Caesar p.86, who was also given a provincial vir perfectissimus command at the time of Gallienus), or an early tribune of the auxilia palatina Batavi (the seniores/iuniores division had not yet happened at this point). We know that the auxilia were commanded by tribunes - Bainobaudes and the future emperor Valens were both tribunes of the Cornuti.
Both very possible.
They couldn't have been recruited from the area the Batavi were formerly settled in because that Area was full of Frisii in 297 AD onwards. Any units from that area would have been known as "Frixiavonum"
Quote:They couldn't have been recruited from the area the Batavi were formerly settled in because that Area was full of Frisii in 297 AD onwards. Any units from that area would have been known as "Frixiavonum"
Nono, the Frisii are not there at all. We see some early movement from Drenthe (eastern parts of The Netherlands) towards the Rhine, and only a few across it, but by far the most keep returning to the areas north of the Rhine. This continues until the later 4th c., when we see the first settlers in Brabant and finally Toxandria. During the early 5th century the original settlements in Drenthe begin to empty, until they are empty after the second half of the 5th c.
Frisians become part of the move towards Britain at that time, but their lands from Schleswich to Zeeland are actually settled by what we would call Danes and Saxons. Only after the middle of the 6th century do we see these peoples arrive at the Rhine. No Frisians present in the old Batavi lands therefore during the 3rd-4th centuries.
According to chapter 7 the Pangeyrici Latini Constantius Chlorus resettled a large number of them in Flanders and Kent, along the Rhing down to about Tournai and Arras, in 297, where they persisted there from their characteristic "Terp Tritzum" pottery style throughout the 4th century and into the 5th century in where Frisiavones (Frixiavones) they are listed in the Notitia with the other British Units at Vindobala and Rudchester (this one is a Tombstone).
The foederati section of the Notitia was updated until 442 and the Batavi are not listed. Nor are Saxons or Frisians.
The Frisii return as the "Frisian Kingdom" beginning in 511, but these were actually a kingdom of Saxons and Angles, the Frisii had been absorbed by the Roman and then Merovingian supercultures by this point.
Fun fact: Genetic markers show the Frisii, Frisiavones, and Chauchi werein fact not of Germanic origin like the Batavii, Chatti, Gothones, etc were.