RomanArmyTalk
Late Roman Unit Sizes - Printable Version

+- 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)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34


Late Roman Unit Sizes - ValentinianVictrix - 04-03-2014

Quote:Hi Adrian,

ValentinianVictrix post=353323 Wrote:So, if the Roman's, including former Roman Tribunes, call troops auxiliaries then they are not actually auxiliaries?
I don’t think I have ever read a more baffling statement to be honest!
If they are not auxiliaries then Evan, what do you believe them to be? And don't quote the Notitia as that document is not entirely accurate and does not actually specify what an auxilia unit is or is not. in this context.

You are taking unit names and designation too literally here. Lots of late Roman unit names and designations are no literal descriptions of the nature of the troops.
Scutati did not carry only a scutum or a different one. The Sabini or the Latini were ‘named after’ the ancient tribes, no-one believes they were still drafted from still-existing tribes. The elite Scholae regiments were also a fighting bodyguard, not a training camp for young officers.
Also, I have yet to find a scholar who supports the idea that – after all – the auxiliaries of the Principate military system were still in existence after Caracalla extended the Roman citizenship to every citizen within the Empire. The word ‘auxilia’ indeed means – literally- auxiliary, but within the late Roman military system taht differed from the Principate.

The late Roman auxilia palatina (and that second word is the giveaway) were at the top of the military ranking, which in the Notitia Dignitatum gives us the system of how the units were ranked in terms of respect, pay and importance. Below the scholae we find the field army (comitatenses) with all the ‘palatina’ units first, then the regular legions, etc. etc. This alone is a huge difference from the ‘old’ auxiliary system which had the classic auxilia units ranked below the legions.

Also, we have no indication even of a drafting system which excluded non-Romans from the 'non-auxilia' units. So what, in your opinion, does 'auxilia' signify when you think they were similar to the old auxilia cohorts?
But don’t take my word for it, it’s argued by many scholars.

I'm fully aware that you should never deduce a unit from its title, I even counselled Steven from falling into that trap. We know that there was a difference between service in the Legions and the auxilia units because there was no expectation for the auxilia troops to build fortifications for example, that being the remit of the legions.

I was in the main thinking of the Franks, Goths, Alamanni and other 'barbarian' tribes who often provided troops to serve alongside the Romans, the ones Ammianus called 'our foreign allies' and similar such terms. They surely would be classed as auxilliaries?


Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 04-03-2014

They were called Foederati (from their Foedera) and that's what they were called in the Roman military. Ammianus Classicized them by calling them Auxiliaries.

I highly recommend Peter Heather's Foedera and Foederati in the 4th Century

I have it in PDF for those who would like a copy via email.


Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 04-03-2014

Quote:The source for the 400 guards from legio II Traiana could have be taken from M.P. Speidel

I believe Sander is referring to the lanciarii detachment mentioned on the Panopolis papyrus (as we discussed before) - 439 men seems the best available figure.

Arrian has some of his legionaries armed with the lancea, and it seems possible that his soomatophylakes or lonchophoroi are intended to be lanciarii, who in turn are mentioned elsewhere as serving in a bodyguard role.


Late Roman Unit Sizes - ValentinianVictrix - 04-03-2014

Quote:They were called Foederati (from their Foedera) and that's what they were called in the Roman military. Ammianus Classicized them by calling them Auxiliaries.

I highly recommend Peter Heather's Foedera and Foederati in the 4th Century

I have it in PDF for those who would like a copy via email.

If it were only Ammianus calling such troops as auxiliaries then I might just agree with you Evan. However, there are a number of Late Roman sources that call the foreign troops 'auxiliaries' that rather suggests that is what they were called during the 4th century. I think you would finding investing in the Loeb translations of Ammianus better than the one you read on the net to be honest.


Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 04-03-2014

I have... an online one which is pretty good. Who does Loeb use because I think I have the same guy?

Also, just because they're called Auxiliaries doesn't mean they are. That kind of thing happens all the time in Roman literature. Like Greek authors calling legionnaires Phalangites for example.


Late Roman Unit Sizes - Macedon - 04-04-2014

Quote:Arrian has some of his legionaries armed with the lancea, and it seems possible that his soomatophylakes or lonchophoroi are intended to be lanciarii, who in turn are mentioned elsewhere as serving in a bodyguard role.

I would be very reluctant to equate the term logche with the lancea or the term logchophoroi with the lanciarii. It unfortunately seems that both terms are used very broadly in Greek. Is it the same in Latin?


Quote:Also, just because they're called Auxiliaries doesn't mean they are. That kind of thing happens all the time in Roman literature. Like Greek authors calling legionnaires Phalangites for example.

What are the auxiliaries then exactly? Following the same line of thinking, they might exist under different names in which case one could as well call them auxiliaries.


Late Roman Unit Sizes - Mark Hygate - 04-04-2014

Quote:What are the auxiliaries then exactly? Following the same line of thinking, they might exist under different names in which case one could as well call them auxiliaries.

If I may, it would seem completely reasonable to interpret 'auxiliaries' as I believe the Romans did throughout our period....as 'auxiliary' to the legions

- During the Middle Imperial (time that Polybius/Livy mainly refer to) the auxiliaries are the Socii allies, but otherwise armed and armoured identically

- for the Late Republic they are the allies and mercenaries providing the light troops, 'specialists' and cavalry that the legions no longer possess themselves

- For the Early Empire they are the regularised auxiliary units that provide the garrisons and supporting troops to the c30 legions

- and during the Late Empire they are, as well as the limitanei descendants of those above as well as the new Auxilia Palatina units who join with the Field Army Legio's as their main (it seems) infantry striking arm; not improbably given their naming, indeed recruited from the tribal areas they seem to represent and still being a source of capable soldiers.

So, always present auxiliary additions to the legion-based troops........ Auxiliaries <> Legion-based troops.

M2CW


Late Roman Unit Sizes - antiochus - 04-05-2014

Nathan wrote:
I believe Sander is referring to the lanciarii detachment mentioned on the Panopolis papyrus (as we discussed before) - 439 men seems the best available figure.

Thank you Nathan. That confirms the figures are modern calculations and not a number given by the primary source.

Nathan wrote:
Arrian has some of his legionaries armed with the lancea, and it seems possible that his soomatophylakes or lonchophoroi are intended to be lanciarii, who in turn are mentioned elsewhere as serving in a bodyguard role.

The number of 200 then 100 is the problem. Is the total 300 or are the 100 part of the 200?


Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 04-07-2014

Quote:it would seem completely reasonable to interpret 'auxiliaries' as I believe the Romans did throughout our period....as 'auxiliary' to the legions

I suspect that any unit of non-citizen troops could have been referred to as 'auxiliary'. This would be true for the principiate auxiliary cohorts and alae - and would explain why the term fell from use after the 212 constitution.

Ammianus uses the word to refer both to the auxilia palatina of the field army, and to various contingents of barbarian troops (Goths etc). This implies that the auxilia of the later army were indeed originally raised from non-citizens, although their elite status and immunity from certain duties clearly made them attractive to citizen recruits as well, as Ammianus himself points out.


Quote:So, always present auxiliary additions to the legion-based troops

But why? Principiate auxiliaries were an integral part of the main army force, and often formed the front line in battle. Similarly the later auxilia were prime field army troops. I see no reason why either should be counted apart from the legions in determining overall army size. We might assume that smaller bodies of barbarian 'federates' were discounted from the total, but there's little hard evidence for this. Galerius's 25,000 men in the Persian campaign of 298 certainly included a large number of Goths.


Quote:The number of 200 then 100 is the problem. Is the total 300 or are the 100 part of the 200?

Now you're twisting my melon. Confusedilly:


Late Roman Unit Sizes - Mark Hygate - 04-07-2014

Quote:.....
Mark Hygate post=353663 Wrote:So, always present auxiliary additions to the legion-based troops

But why? Principiate auxiliaries were an integral part of the main army force, and often formed the front line in battle. Similarly the later auxilia were prime field army troops. I see no reason why either should be counted apart from the legions in determining overall army size. We might assume that smaller bodies of barbarian 'federates' were discounted from the total, but there's little hard evidence for this. Galerius's 25,000 men in the Persian campaign of 298 certainly included a large number of Goths.

Please don't get me wrong, I am not one who advocates that 'auxiliary' equates to 'inferior troops', but am simply marking them as 'adjunct', or 'supporting', or 'in addition' - this is how I believe the Romans always approached them. Moreover I have come to the view that the, often equal numbers we see, where roughly half of the Roman army are each legion- or auxiliary-based is by conscious design.

In this discussion we are concentrating on the Later Army, where the Auxilia Palatina units do seem to normally take the brunt of the fighting and have, not entirely inaccurately, sometimes been described as 'shock troops'. Equally, however, they can still be considered as an 'auxiliary' element to the legions and I am content that is how they are often described - along with other additional, and less formal, troops.

As an aside, and whilst the ND provides the matured/later snapshot - am I right in still believing that the 'original' Constantinian Field Army with it's 5 cavalry vexillatio's; 5 Legios Palatina; and 10 Auxilia Palatina that I saw listed lo' those many years ago in Barker's Armies and Enemies series - has a detailed source somewhere? It's an army size that would make perfect sense based upon it's predecessor and has lead me to certain conclusions, but I'd appreciate knowing the primary source?


Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 04-07-2014

I ignore Phil Barker completely. Horribly outdated.


Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 04-07-2014

Quote:am I right in still believing that the 'original' Constantinian Field Army with it's 5 cavalry vexillatio's; 5 Legios Palatina; and 10 Auxilia Palatina that I saw listed lo' those many years ago in Barker's Armies and Enemies series - has a detailed source somewhere?

Not as far as I know. No army of the era is described in any great detail - excepting some of the legion detachments apparently with Galerius in Egypt. I assume Barker has come up with a reasonable estimate based on total army sizes from different sources, but as we still can't decide on the size of either a legion or an auxilium at this date it's pure guesswork.

Eusebius gives Constantine 20,000 men at Cibalae (AD316/17), while Panegyric XII claims he invaded Italy in AD312 with 'fewer than 40,000' men. However, Zosimus (II.15) says that the emperor had 98,000 by the time of Milvian Bridge. The latter figure seems incredible.

Field armies of between 15,000 and 30,000 seem most common during this period, but with the contrary claims and exaggerations of different writers it's hard to more definite than that.


Late Roman Unit Sizes - Mark Hygate - 04-08-2014

Evan, thanks, I quite understand, but it is just something I knew about all those years - and my recent research would probably support that organisation.

Nathan - and more thanks. I'd known of them so long that I hadn't particularly thought to query them directly (and indeed will still use them), but equally hadn't seen any primary evidence to support them.

Equally I wasn't trying to relate them to an actual army of the time, but more to the transition from the previous/embryonic field army of Severus - and the 'numbers' would work out very nicely. That does lead me, however, towards my theory that an Auxilia Palatina of this period is still based upon a Cohort (of 6 centuries/500) and a Field Army Legio is double that.

And see whether it stands up..... :wink:


Late Roman Unit Sizes - Robert Vermaat - 04-10-2014

Quote:Ammianus uses the word to refer both to the auxilia palatina of the field army, and to various contingents of barbarian troops (Goths etc). This implies that the auxilia of the later army were indeed originally raised from non-citizens, although their elite status and immunity from certain duties clearly made them attractive to citizen recruits as well, as Ammianus himself points out.

Not necessarily. I agree with the current notion that Late Roman 'auxilia palatina' were named after the 'auxilia'of the Principate and before, yet they were not based on either a class difference or non-citizen troops. To my knowledege this has never been established and the idea that the name (auxilia) leads to an origin of the troops (non-citizens) is therefore a huge leap that I'm unwilling to risk.

An analogy may be found in the 'buccellarii', which originally were private forces, bodyguards, developing into privately-finaced regiments. However, still later the name is used for quite regular regiments in the army, with only the name reminiscent of the origin. The same applies to the late Roman 'auxilia palatina'.


Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 04-10-2014

Palatina would have had more, not less, priveleges than the Comitatenses.