Posts: 791
Threads: 23
Joined: May 2010
Reputation:
5
Quote:ValentinianVictrix post=353301 Wrote:Magister Militum Flavius Aetius post=353300 Wrote:Umm... Auxiliaries? This is the 4th century, not the 1st.
Evan, why are you querying this? Ammianus and Vegetius both stated that the Legiones were supported by auxiliary troops, what do you think the Auxilia units were?
Well they weren't Auxiliaries. Maybe another term for Foederati?
Of course they were auxiliaries, thats why those ancient authors called them as such! Apart from the Auxilia Palatina units there were Auxilia comitatensis and Auxilia Limitanae units as well. And Ammianus records a number of instances where the Romans in the 4th century recruited from the 'barbarian' tribes and when they did so he used terms such as 'Scythian auxiliaries', or 'foreign auxiliaries', not Foederati. Constantine I, Licinius, Magnetius, Constantius II, Julian, Procopius, Valentinian I, Valens, Gratian and Theodosius I all recruited troops from the tribes north of the Rhine and Danube and they were always described as 'auxiliaries'.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Posts: 4,861
Threads: 129
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation:
32
Umm... just because they were called Auxiliaries in the sources doesn't make them Auxiliaries.
There are Limitanei units graded as Auxilia in the Notitia, but that's it.
Posts: 791
Threads: 23
Joined: May 2010
Reputation:
5
Quote:Umm... just because they were called Auxiliaries in the sources doesn't make them Auxiliaries.
There are Limitanei units graded as Auxilia in the Notitia, but that's it.
So, if the Roman's, including former Roman Tribunes, call troops auxiliaries then they are not actually auxiliaries?
I dont 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.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Posts: 4,861
Threads: 129
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation:
32
No it doesn't.
The references to Auxiliaries I have seen are always in the context of Barbarian add-ons to Roman troops: Foederati or Bucellarii.
Of course, it could always be an outdated expression for limitanei, but I am inclined to think it refers to Foederati.
Posts: 791
Threads: 23
Joined: May 2010
Reputation:
5
Quote:No it doesn't.
The references to Auxiliaries I have seen are always in the context of Barbarian add-ons to Roman troops: Foederati or Bucellarii.
Of course, it could always be an outdated expression for limitanei, but I am inclined to think it refers to Foederati.
Ah, I think your thinking is coloured by your interest in 5th century history Evan.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Posts: 4,861
Threads: 129
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation:
32
The 5th century Army had undergone some Marked changes since the 4th century, indeed. My understanding of the Army's evolution in the 4th century is not as advanced as my understanding of the army's evolution in the 5th century.
Nathan wrote:
At least, as far as know - there may well be instances that demonstrate otherwise, but you'd have to find them!
Taking Ammianus’ figure of 30,000 men, the other three figures of 16,000 men, 18000 men, and 20,000 men does indicate all three writers are only focusing on a part of the army they believe is relevant. Let me change my wording to the figures of 16,000 to 20,000 men consist of the auxiliaries such as the palatine auxiliaries you mention and the Romans, and the additional 10,000 are barbarians of which the other three authors have omitted. There are some similarities here to the battle of Pharsalus. The numbers given for Caesar’s infantry are:
Appian about 22000
Caesar 22000
Eutropius 30000
Orosius 30000
Plutarch 22000
For the battle of Pharsalus Appian writes that “Since many writers differ as to Caesar’s army, …but do not much make account of the allied forces or record them exactly, regarding them as mere foreigners and as contributing little to the issue of the day.”
Have Orosius and Eutroius included the foreigners? It could be that Ammianus includes the barbarians and the other three authors for Procopius’ army do not. In the end the difference between three of the authors is a consistent 2000 men, and that alone in itself needs exploring. These sorts of mathematical patterns will always attract my interest.
Evan wrote:
Umm... Auxiliaries? This is the 4th century, not the 1st.
As you have been informed, and as Ammianus and Vegetius use the term auxiliary, I also will be using the term auxiliary…full stop.
Posts: 1,216
Threads: 42
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
1
Just because I scolded Malalas earlier... it seems that in his accounts of event during Anastasius' I reign onwards, he is much more reliable.
Macedon
MODERATOR
Forum rules
George C. K.
῾Ηρακλῆος γὰρ ἀνικήτου γένος ἐστέ
Macedon wrote:
Just because I scolded Malalas earlier... it seems that in his accounts of event during Anastasius' I reign onwards, he is much more reliable.
The lesson being not to throw the baby out with the bath water. I am making rapid progress at the moment. I used my tribal system for the period of Diocletian in regard to the praetorian infantry and cavalry and it produces 10 units of 200 men, which is what Julian had at Strasbourg. The praetorians may have been disbanded by Constantine, but there organisation lives on. The Late Roman army is still adhering to the Pythagorean system, the difference is the Romans had chopped the organisation up into smaller pieces. I now have too many mathematical matches for it to be coincidence.
Posts: 4,861
Threads: 129
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation:
32
Uh... Julian had way more than 10 units of 200 men...
Evan wrote:
Uh... Julian had way more than 10 units of 200 men...
And so he did, but his bodyguard cavalry at Strasbourg is mentioned as numbering 200 men.
Posts: 15,116
Threads: 415
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
77
Hi Adrian,
Quote: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.
Posts: 4,223
Threads: 176
Joined: Mar 2003
Reputation:
171
Quote: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.
Surely they did still exist - some of them appear in the ND, after all, occupying the same stations they'd held since the principate - but they were no longer called 'auxiliary' cohorts?
A rescript of Diocletian (C.J. 10.55(54).3) informs a certain Philopater that he is not eligible for the discharge exemptions due to veterans of legions or vexillations (of cavalry, presumably), since he 'served in a cohort'. So the former auxiliary units were still classed as lower grade troops, even if they were citizens.
While Ammianus mostly uses the word auxiliary to refer to the auxilia palatina, he also mentions auxiliary troops coming from various foreign peoples - more an adjective than a noun, in that case. Neither usage is the same as the old principiate auxiliaries though. The new constitution of 212, as you say, seems a good guess for the change of title.
Nathan Ross
Sander van Dorst webpage “Arrian’s Array” under the title “the marching order” reads:
“Also the low number of legionary foot guards mentioned later on, some 200 rather than the approximately 400 recorded for legio II Traiana in Diocletian’s reign, may mean that the elite legionaries were marching with their own subunits rather than detached for special duty.”
The source for the 400 guards from legio II Traiana could have be taken from M.P. Speidel, The guards of the Roman army (Bonn 1978), 46 but I cannot be sure as I do not have access to this book nor could I find a readable version online. So I am wondering where the figure of 400 guardsmen came from.
Can anyone help? Your help would be greatly appreciated.
Posts: 4,861
Threads: 129
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation:
32
|
