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


RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 11-01-2016

(11-01-2016, 10:05 AM)ValentinianVictrix Wrote: '...trecentenis militibus per singulos numeros...'
'...three hundred soldiers from each legion...'

'Three hundred soldiers from each unit' (numerus) would be a better translation, I'd say. Although, as we discussed elsewhere, 'numerus' could refer to a legion by this stage, or an auxilium!

Vexillatio referred only to cavalry units after c320.


RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 11-01-2016

By the 5th century, having looked at the primary sources, it seems the Numerus consistently refers to a unit of about 600 men, most likely 640 men + officers and standard bearers at paper strength. The Numerus/Arithmos was a new-style regiment created in the 4th century and stopped being a term referring to irregularly sized units around that time. The first Numeri were the Auxilia Palatina regiments, all created or reorganized in the Early 4th - Early 5th century, and later spread into the Limitanei.


RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 11-01-2016

(11-01-2016, 10:57 AM)Flavivs Aetivs Wrote: the Numerus consistently refers to a unit of about 600 men

Although the Perge legion is described as a numerus on the inscription, and must have numbered at least twice that...

I would prefer to think that numerus was an intentionally non-specific term used for later army units of varying sizes. Although clearly there must have been more than 300 men in each of the numeri mentioned by Ammianus...


RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - ValentinianVictrix - 11-01-2016

Having thought about this I think Ammianus is referring to a new unit when talking about 'Numerus' or variants thereof. He specifically mentions Legions and Auxilia units in the text of his work and I think he would have specifically referred to the 300 being detached from legions or auxilia but he does not, which leads me to believe that is because they were taken from another kind of unit. Its interesting that the two examples given by Steven are to elements of a campaign army, which would have included all kinds of different unit types.


RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 11-01-2016

(11-01-2016, 11:04 AM)ValentinianVictrix Wrote: I think he would have specifically referred to the 300 being detached from legions or auxilia but he does not, which leads me to believe that is because they were taken from another kind of unit.

'Aerulos et Batavos cumque Petulantibus Celtas et lectos ex numeris aliis trecentenos'

The units specifically mentioned here are auxilia - but it's not clear whether the 'other numeri' are also auxilia, or legions, or what.

There's an implication that the four units listed are themselves numeri (as they would have been - all the auxilia units on the Concordia tombstones are numeri).

I would think Ammianus's meaning here is that these four are the only units sent at full strength, with 300-man drafts taken from all the others (whether auxilia or field army legions).


RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - Renatus - 11-01-2016

(11-01-2016, 03:00 AM)Steven James Wrote: Is there evidence to disprove the arithmoi/numeri could be another term for vexillation?

To get back to the original question, it seems clear that, in both the examples quoted, the numeri are the parent units and not the detachments from them.


RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 11-01-2016

I think "Numerus" may be a term that became standardized, but could have been used in its original context as simply "regiment" or "military unit" as well.

The Notitia clearly makes a distinction between units called Numeri, Legiones, Alae, Cohortes, and Cunei (also a new style unit, probably a 1/2 ala based on Arrian's Tarantiarchia). Milites and Equites too although these are probably part of the name, not a type of regiment.


RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 11-01-2016

(11-01-2016, 01:39 PM)Flavivs Aetivs Wrote: The Notitia clearly makes a distinction between units called Numeri, Legiones, Alae, Cohortes, and Cunei

Maybe it does, but that distinction doesn't seem to be borne out by other evidence from around the same period! The units of palatine auxilia listed in the ND are described as numeri on the Concordia tombstones (and in other inscriptions); the Perge inscription describes a legion as a numerus... Literary sources call all sorts of units numeri.

There were older units (2nd-3rd C) that were solely called numeri - usually frontier formations, perhaps more or less irregular - and some of these may have metamorphosed into new-style auxilia at some point. But it seems likely that, by the later empire, the word was being used for all other sorts of military unit as well...

So unless every unit in the late Roman army was the same size, I don't think we can assume that the word numerus or arithmos connoted a fixed number of men.


RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 11-01-2016

Quote:The units of palatine auxilia listed in the ND are described as numeri on the Concordia tombstones (and in other inscriptions);

All Auxilia Palatina units in the Notitia are labelled Numeri, barring one which Jones/Duncan-Jones/Ueda-Sarson all theorize is a unit upgraded from the British Limes.

Quote:the Perge inscription describes a legion as a numerus... Literary sources call all sorts of units numeri.

Literary sources largely make the distinction between the Legion (Chilia) and Numerus (Arithmos), I think even the Strategikon does but that's in the middle of further military transition.

I think that there was a specific unit of a fixed number of men called a Numerus or Arithmos, but the term also retained its original irregular meaning. At least amongst authors who weren't military experts, maybe.


RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - ValentinianVictrix - 11-01-2016

This also raises the interesting question as to what percentage does 300 men represent from the unit they are taken from?


RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 11-01-2016

(11-01-2016, 02:41 PM)Flavivs Aetivs Wrote: All Auxilia Palatina units in the Notitia are labelled Numeri

Are you sure? As far as I'm aware the latin text of the ND does not give any specific unit label for them - it just calls them auxilia palatina.

However, the list of units of the provincial field armies is headed Qui numeri ex praedictis per infrascriptas provincias habeantur - 'which of the aforementioned units (numeri) are stationed in the following provinces': the list that follows includes both palatine and comitatensis legiones, palatine auxilia and, in a separate list, vexillationes of equites.

There are units called numeri in the ND, almost all stationed in Britain as limitanei, but they appear to be old-style formations; similar troops on other frontiers appear in a unit called an auxilium, confusingly!

So if numerus could officially refer to all three types of legion, and auxilia, and equites, besides being a name for a type of limitanei unit, I think we must assume that it could not have connoted a fixed number of men.

Perhaps it was precisely because the late Roman army included so many different types of units, of differing sizes, that this inexact word was adopted to refer to them all.


RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 11-01-2016

Hmm...

Luke Ueda-Sarson lists all the Palatina units as Numeri. I didn't actually look at the latin text itself. I'll admit: I stand corrected.


RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - Nathan Ross - 11-01-2016

(11-01-2016, 10:14 PM)Flavivs Aetivs Wrote: Hmm...

Luke Ueda-Sarson lists all the Palatina units as Numeri. I didn't actually look at the latin text itself. I'll admit: I stand corrected.

This is the point, I think - the ND didn't need to list them as numeri, because that was obvious.

So while the ND lists the auxilia palatina units of Batavi Seniores, Heruli Seniores and Sagittarii Nervii, the (roughly contemporary) Concordia tombstones mention Flavius Savinus, ducenarius of numero Batavorum seniorum, Flavius Sindila the senator of numero Herulorum seniorum and Flavius Victurus of numero sagittariorum Nerviorum.

The ND lists the vexillatio comitatensis unit called Equites Octavo Dalmatae; from Concordia comes an inscription to a ducenarius of numero equitum VIII Dalmatarum.

Numerus was the umbrella title for all military units by this date, regardless of size or distinction.


RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - Robert Vermaat - 11-02-2016

(11-01-2016, 10:40 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: Numerus was the umbrella title for all military units by this date, regardless of size or distinction.

Or, in other later sources such as Gildas, legion.


RE: Late Roman Unit Sizes - Flavivs Aetivs - 11-02-2016

Robert is right. These terms were always used as general words for a body of soldiers. Hence why I maintain there was a standardized regiment called a numerus.