11-15-2020, 12:37 PM
Hello all,
This is my first post on this excellent and informative forum.
I'm a collector of miniatures (little men), occasional wargamer and history enthusiast (especially military history).
I've been spending a lot of time recently on that part of Luke Ueda-Sarson's website dedicated to the Notitia Dignitatum and in particular to the Eastern army, some units of which I'm hoping to recreate on the tabletop. Mr U-S's musings on the origins of different units and their relationships are fascinating and, at least to my eyes, well argued. They raise questions which I know won't have any definitive answer but which I think might be interesting to discuss. At any rate I would be interested to read your views on them.
Firstly, when would the Praesental army have been split in two and why? Could it have been during the reorganization in 363/4 after the death of Julian or in 377/8 when Valens was preparing to "deal with" the Goths? Or later when Theodosius went west to fight the usurper Eugenius? Or even I suppose during earlier civil wars such as in 351? And why the split anyway? Theodosius effectively reigned alone in the east, his son Arcadius being only six years old when elevated to the purple and so hardly likely to be leading an army on campaign. Splitting the army meant that someone else, a potential rival, was left in command of a sizeable force which, given the paranoia of emperors of the time, seems surprising. If it was Valens who split the army, why did he not take his whole available force to combat the Goths? Even if the Romans underestimated the number of men the Goths could put in the field they still represented an immediate threat and success against them was by no means guaranteed so why not take every available man?
Secondly, and more specifically, Mr U-S argues convincingly that the two armies were split into near identical halves in such a way that in many instances matched pairs of units were broken up. It seems to be generally accepted that Late Roman infantry units usually acted in pairs, or brigades of two, and that these pairings were more or less permanent. Amongst the Auxilia Palatina of the two praesental armies however we often find one half of an apparent pair in one army and the other half in the other. For example in 9th place in the lists of Auxilia Palatina we find respectively the Defensores and the Vindices. These have similar names and similar shield patterns. Same in 10th place with the Raetobari and the Bucinobantes, in 11th place with the Anglevari and Falchovari and in 12th place with the Hiberi and Thraces. Why do this? There seems to be every advantage, tactically and psychologically, in keeping units together permanently so why split them up?
Your thoughts on these matters would be much appreciated.
Cordialement,
Colonel Chabert
This is my first post on this excellent and informative forum.
I'm a collector of miniatures (little men), occasional wargamer and history enthusiast (especially military history).
I've been spending a lot of time recently on that part of Luke Ueda-Sarson's website dedicated to the Notitia Dignitatum and in particular to the Eastern army, some units of which I'm hoping to recreate on the tabletop. Mr U-S's musings on the origins of different units and their relationships are fascinating and, at least to my eyes, well argued. They raise questions which I know won't have any definitive answer but which I think might be interesting to discuss. At any rate I would be interested to read your views on them.
Firstly, when would the Praesental army have been split in two and why? Could it have been during the reorganization in 363/4 after the death of Julian or in 377/8 when Valens was preparing to "deal with" the Goths? Or later when Theodosius went west to fight the usurper Eugenius? Or even I suppose during earlier civil wars such as in 351? And why the split anyway? Theodosius effectively reigned alone in the east, his son Arcadius being only six years old when elevated to the purple and so hardly likely to be leading an army on campaign. Splitting the army meant that someone else, a potential rival, was left in command of a sizeable force which, given the paranoia of emperors of the time, seems surprising. If it was Valens who split the army, why did he not take his whole available force to combat the Goths? Even if the Romans underestimated the number of men the Goths could put in the field they still represented an immediate threat and success against them was by no means guaranteed so why not take every available man?
Secondly, and more specifically, Mr U-S argues convincingly that the two armies were split into near identical halves in such a way that in many instances matched pairs of units were broken up. It seems to be generally accepted that Late Roman infantry units usually acted in pairs, or brigades of two, and that these pairings were more or less permanent. Amongst the Auxilia Palatina of the two praesental armies however we often find one half of an apparent pair in one army and the other half in the other. For example in 9th place in the lists of Auxilia Palatina we find respectively the Defensores and the Vindices. These have similar names and similar shield patterns. Same in 10th place with the Raetobari and the Bucinobantes, in 11th place with the Anglevari and Falchovari and in 12th place with the Hiberi and Thraces. Why do this? There seems to be every advantage, tactically and psychologically, in keeping units together permanently so why split them up?
Your thoughts on these matters would be much appreciated.
Cordialement,
Colonel Chabert
