02-15-2007, 12:31 PM
Daniele,
of course Im very interested in creating a unit list - dont see my scepticism regarding some points as contraproductive
So -
first of all - dont forget the Goths!!!
They sent Julian according to their foedus with Constantine 3000 elite warriors of the Tervingi for the Persian campaign - and proved their worth:
Zosimus Book3:
That story by the way proves Ammianus account (AM 24.6.1ff) a little bit blown up. Ammianus let it seem to be a major battle, but from Zosimus it is clear that it was a bridge head operation and the greater part of the army crossed later. Ammianus even lets Julian be present at the battle - another point contradicted by Zosimus.
About the Goths see Wolfram: Die Goten, P. 73
The strenght of the foederati detachment of Goths: AM 26.10,3
About the Batavi:
Robert - you are totally right pointing to more than one Batavi unit. And that is something Hoffmann has a problem with: he lets the other ones come into beeing only after the supposed army partition of 365. Its more than possible that there were more than one Batavi unit before that date.
Surely the Batavi-Heruli pair. Maybe a Batavi-Regii pair (if that ever existed, but thats another question). And dont forget the Batavi horse units. They are IMHO the likeliest candidates for some mentioning of Batavi anyway: like Adrianople 378 or Strasbourg 357...
of course Im very interested in creating a unit list - dont see my scepticism regarding some points as contraproductive
So -
first of all - dont forget the Goths!!!
They sent Julian according to their foedus with Constantine 3000 elite warriors of the Tervingi for the Persian campaign - and proved their worth:
Zosimus Book3:
Quote:The emperor, however, being very resolute, two barges crossed over full of foot soldiers ; which the Persians immediately set on fire by throwing down on them a great number of flaming darts. This so increased the terror of the army, that the emperor was obliged to conceal his error by a feint, saying, "They are landed and have rendered themselves masters of the bank ; I know it by the fire in their ships, which I ordered them to make as a signal of victory." He had no sooner said this, than without further preparations they embarked in the ships and crossed over, until they arrived where they could ford the river, and then leaping into the water, they engaged the Persians so fiercely, that they not only gained possession of the bank, but recovered the two ships which came over first, and were now half burnt, and saved all the men who were left in them. The armies then attacked each other with such fury, that the battle continued from midnight to noon of the next day. The Persians at length gave way, and fled with all the speed they could use, their commandors being the first who began to fly. Those were Pigraxes, a person of the highest birth and rank next to the king, Anareus, and Surenas. The Romans and Goths pursued them, and killed a great number, from whom they took a vast quantity of gold and silver, besides ornaments of all kinds for men and horses, with silver beds and tables, and whatever was left by the officers on the ramparts. It is computed, that in this battle there fell of the Persians two thousand five hundred, and of the Romans not more than seventy-five. The joy of the army for this victory was lessened by Victor having received a wound from an engine.
Upon the following day the emperor sent his army over the Tigris without difficulty, and the third day after the action he himself with his guards followed them.
That story by the way proves Ammianus account (AM 24.6.1ff) a little bit blown up. Ammianus let it seem to be a major battle, but from Zosimus it is clear that it was a bridge head operation and the greater part of the army crossed later. Ammianus even lets Julian be present at the battle - another point contradicted by Zosimus.
About the Goths see Wolfram: Die Goten, P. 73
The strenght of the foederati detachment of Goths: AM 26.10,3
About the Batavi:
Robert - you are totally right pointing to more than one Batavi unit. And that is something Hoffmann has a problem with: he lets the other ones come into beeing only after the supposed army partition of 365. Its more than possible that there were more than one Batavi unit before that date.
Surely the Batavi-Heruli pair. Maybe a Batavi-Regii pair (if that ever existed, but thats another question). And dont forget the Batavi horse units. They are IMHO the likeliest candidates for some mentioning of Batavi anyway: like Adrianople 378 or Strasbourg 357...
Jens Wucherpfennig
