+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Late Roman Unit Sizes (/showthread.php?tid=23660)
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 03-23-2014
Their names really say nothing about what kind of troops they were. The Lanciarii were heavy infantry, Legio Palatina; so were the Mattiarii. Both of them were front-line units.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Renatus - 03-23-2014
Quote:Isn't Cursatores the same as the Greek Koursorses?Is there such a word as cursator? Not in my dictionary or Lewis & Short.
Incidentally, Lewis & Short gives 'scout' as an alternative meaning of excursator, so that's all right!
Late Roman Unit Sizes - ValentinianVictrix - 03-23-2014
Quote:ValentinianVictrix post=352870 Wrote:Michael, my research indicates that both Palatine Legions and Auxiliary units could, and often were, brigaded together. And it was not always the same two units either, although in most most cases it was the same two. The Lanciarii and Mattiarii appear to be brigaded together during Julian's Sassanid campaign, as were the Herculanii and the Iovanii Legions. The Lanciarii and Mattiarii were brigaded together at Adrianople.Indeed, but in those instances do they preserve their separate identities? If Malalas is suggesting that this was a vexillation made up of elements from the two units (and, of course, I take Macedon's reservations into account), it would make sense, as they were used to working together. Incidentally, Ammianus 14.1.2 confirms the number of 1500. Rolfe's translation calls them 'mounted scouts' but Ammianus says nothing about their being mounted. The word he uses is excursatores which my dictionary calls 'skirmishers' but I suppose that, in this context, 'scouts' would do just as well. This said, the doubts about Malalas mean that it would be unsafe to rely upon him.
You raise an interesting point here Michael. When Ammianus describes troops that have been detached for special duties as 'expediti', and this was applied to both infantry and cavalry. Yet in this instance he uses the term 'excuratores', and I'm struggling to recall if he used that term again in his history to describe detachments. I'm not sure if the description of 1500 men means 750 are detached from the two legiones or 1500 were detached from from them. Either way I would suggest that even if it was the lower figure then the legiones must have been larger than 1500 men strong because I cannot see anyone sending half of each unit on an operation.
I think we can all agree that it was the two Legiones rather than Evans suggested units.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - antiochus - 03-23-2014
Evan wrote:
Their names really say nothing about what kind of troops they were. The Lanciarii were heavy infantry, Legio Palatina; so were the Mattiarii. Both of them were front-line units.
Why would anyone send heavy armed infantry to act as scouts? Doesn’t seem tactically logical. The hastati were missile armed infantry but they also fought close combat. In comparison to the velites, the hastati were heavy armed infantry. In comparison to the principes, the hastati are light-armed infantry. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that the Roman army, and I also mean the Late Roman army did not consist of two troop types. One of them must be more missile armed than the other. The battle of Strasbourg shows this to be so.
The question I am asking is are the Mattiarii armed with the lead weighted dart (Vegetius 2 15)?
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 03-23-2014
Just because they are heavy infantry doesn't mean they can remove their armor.
That Malalas and Ammianus uses the same term for both units suggests they were the same type, so we are probably dealing with the Mattiarii Iuniores (Legio Comitatenses) and Lanciarii Seniores (Legio Palatina).
Late Roman Unit Sizes - antiochus - 03-23-2014
Evan wrote:
Just because they are heavy infantry doesn't mean they can remove their armor.
Making troops fight that isn’t in keeping with their doctrine would not be good for morale. What I think is happening here is the Mattiarii and Lanciarii are two different troops types and can be generally classified in the primary sources as scutati or targeteers. I definition of targeteers are troops who can fight missile combat of close combat, like the hastati. This leaves the question what are the heavy infantry called?
Late Roman Unit Sizes - ValentinianVictrix - 03-23-2014
Quote:Evan wrote:
Their names really say nothing about what kind of troops they were. The Lanciarii were heavy infantry, Legio Palatina; so were the Mattiarii. Both of them were front-line units.
Why would anyone send heavy armed infantry to act as scouts? Doesn’t seem tactically logical. The hastati were missile armed infantry but they also fought close combat. In comparison to the velites, the hastati were heavy armed infantry. In comparison to the principes, the hastati are light-armed infantry. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that the Roman army, and I also mean the Late Roman army did not consist of two troop types. One of them must be more missile armed than the other. The battle of Strasbourg shows this to be so.
The question I am asking is are the Mattiarii armed with the lead weighted dart (Vegetius 2 15)?
I think your unfamiliarity with the Late Roman army shows at this point. There are numerous examples in Ammianus where he describes legionarii and auxilia are sent on special missions and when they do so they are called 'expediti', which Rolfe translates as 'light-armed'. Its clear in one instance that it meant troops taking off their armour and just relying on their shields to defend themselves. Ammianus does mention light troops separate from the legiones and auxilia, and calls them velites, Julian and Libanius called them Psiloi.
The Late Roman unit names are a trap for the unwary. They may have referred to their previous function, the nation or tribe they were originally recruited from, an honorific they were give or just a nickname they acquired. So, the Lanciarii may have recruited from the old Legionary troops if that name, the Batavi may have been originally recruited from that tribe, the Undecimani may have earned that title for never been defeated or retreated from a battle and the Leones may have acquired that name either for being as fierce as lions or for having long hair.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 03-23-2014
Quote:Undecimani
That's Legio XI Claudia Adrian.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - ValentinianVictrix - 03-23-2014
Quote:Evan wrote:
Just because they are heavy infantry doesn't mean they can remove their armor.
Making troops fight that isn’t in keeping with their doctrine would not be good for morale. What I think is happening here is the Mattiarii and Lanciarii are two different troops types and can be generally classified in the primary sources as scutati or targeteers. I definition of targeteers are troops who can fight missile combat of close combat, like the hastati. This leaves the question what are the heavy infantry called?
The Lanciarii and Mattiarii are not two different unit types, just different unit titles. The Scutarii were an Equites Scolae unit, guard cavalry if you like. They seemed to have been brigaded with the Equites Sagittarii, another Scolae unit.
I think the 'heavy infantry' you mentioned would either have been called Legionarii or Milites.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Macedon - 03-23-2014
With scutati, Steven probably means the shield bearing heavy infantry of the late Roman/Byzantine Greek (at least) sources.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - ValentinianVictrix - 03-23-2014
Quote:With scutati, Steven probably means the shield bearing heavy infantry of the late Roman/Byzantine Greek (at least) sources.
Not sure about that as Stephen equates the Scutarii with being called 'targeteers', which implies he has read the Rolfe translation of Ammianus as Rolfe consistently calls the Scutarii 'targeteers' (?).
Late Roman Unit Sizes - antiochus - 03-23-2014
Adrian wrote:
I think your unfamiliarity with the Late Roman army shows at this point.
No, it’s looking through the eyes of a loving and innocent mind.
illy: Adrian wrote:
There are numerous examples in Ammianus where he describes legionarii and auxilia are sent on special missions and when they do so they are called 'expediti', which Rolfe translates as 'light-armed'.
Then the legions had their own light armed legionaries, just like the antesignani or velites or hastati.
Adrian wrote:
Its clear in one instance that it meant troops taking off their armour and just relying on their shields to defend themselves.
Why would they take off their armour to defend themselves? Isn’t the point of armour to is to protect?
Adrian wrote:
Ammianus does mention light troops separate from the legiones and auxilia, and calls them velites, Julian and Libanius called them Psiloi.
This still doesn’t rule out that a proportion of the legionaries are missile infantry. The Late Roman army is still fighting with missiles and swords. It’s not like the Thompson machine gun was introduced. So why would they just drop 1000 years of fighting doctrine with a legion consisting of light armed infantry and heavy armed infantry? It doesn’t make sense.
Arian wrote:
The Late Roman unit names are a trap for the unwary.
They are traps for the unwary in any period, and not just for the Late Roman army. Livy calls the additional triarii levied as accensi, which means servant.
Adrian wrote:
Not sure about that as Stephen equates the Scutarii with being called 'targeteers', which implies he has read the Rolfe translation of Ammianus as Rolfe consistently calls the Scutarii 'targeteers' (?).
That’s the one I am using and trying to learn from. It states that the targeteers are scutarii. Hmm, is there anyone I can trust?
Adrian wrote:
The Lanciarii and Mattiarii are not two different unit types, just different unit titles.
Thank you Adrian, now that makes sense. The units are given names. This could indicate the order in which the units are deployed (thinking out aloud here).
Late Roman Unit Sizes - antiochus - 03-23-2014
Macedon wrote:
With scutati, Steven probably means the shield bearing heavy infantry of the late Roman/Byzantine Greek (at least) sources.
Hypothetically, if I decided to define the units of the Lanciarii and Mattiarii as light armed infantry, could I get away with calling the heavy infantry scutati?
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Macedon - 03-23-2014
My bad... you wrote scutati after all, not scutarii, and I thought you were speaking generally about different troop types like scutati or targeteers... Haven't seen the term being used as light infantry, at least not in Greek sources.
Late Roman Unit Sizes - ValentinianVictrix - 03-23-2014
Quote:Adrian wrote:
I think your unfamiliarity with the Late Roman army shows at this point.
No, it’s looking through the eyes of a loving and innocent mind.
Adrian wrote:
There are numerous examples in Ammianus where he describes legionarii and auxilia are sent on special missions and when they do so they are called 'expediti', which Rolfe translates as 'light-armed'.
Then the legions had their own light armed legionaries, just like the antesignani or velites or hastati.
Adrian wrote:
Its clear in one instance that it meant troops taking off their armour and just relying on their shields to defend themselves.
Why would they take off their armour to defend themselves? Isn’t the point of armour to is to protect?
Adrian wrote:
Ammianus does mention light troops separate from the legiones and auxilia, and calls them velites, Julian and Libanius called them Psiloi.
This still doesn’t rule out that a proportion of the legionaries are missile infantry. The Late Roman army is still fighting with missiles and swords. It’s not like the Thompson machine gun was introduced. So why would they just drop 1000 years of fighting doctrine with a legion consisting of light armed infantry and heavy armed infantry? It doesn’t make sense.
Arian wrote:
The Late Roman unit names are a trap for the unwary.
They are traps for the unwary in any period, and not just for the Late Roman army. Livy calls the additional triarii levied as accensi, which means servant.
Adrian wrote:
Not sure about that as Stephen equates the Scutarii with being called 'targeteers', which implies he has read the Rolfe translation of Ammianus as Rolfe consistently calls the Scutarii 'targeteers' (?).
That’s the one I am using and trying to learn from. It states that the targeteers are scutarii. Hmm, is there anyone I can trust?
Adrian wrote:
The Lanciarii and Mattiarii are not two different unit types, just different unit titles.
Thank you Adrian, now that makes sense. The units are given names. This could indicate the order in which the units are deployed (thinking out aloud here).
I'll address your points here-
Its not clear if the Legiones has integral skirmishers attached, but I would say they did. The Notitia lists several units whose titles imply they were skirmishers, so they could be separate. Troops who were detached as expediti were expected to travel fast or swim across rivers, or climb mountains, and all troop types could be detached in this manner, cavalry, legionaries and auxilia. This is a good example of how versatile the Late Roman army had become.
And this then answers your next question about why would the troops not wear armour if acting as expediti, to do so would have slowed them down, or prevented them swimming across rivers or climb mountains.
And its entirely possible that there were various types of missile armed troops attached to the legiones as Vegetius described, he was using a mix of both ancient and contemporary terms and practice's in his Epitome.