Exploratores (paper request)

[lukeuedasarson]

They could be stationed together with regular auxiliary units (as at Risingham or High Rochester), or on their own (as seems to have been the case with the numerus exploratorum (Germanicianorum) Divitensium (Antoninianorum/Alexandrianorum), probably based in the fort opposite Cologne during the third century, before the Constantinian rebuilding. The latter seem to have been a relatively higher class unit, based on the honorific titles and the fact that at one point they were apparently commanded by an equestrian prefect doing his militiae quarta.

On the other hand, at least one auxiliary unit (VIIII Batavorum in Raetia) seems to have gained the additional title exploratorum at some point, but lost it again before it appears in the ND as cohortis novae batavorum.

So perhaps the name originated with units of (irregular?) scouts, but, as Robert suggests, later acquired a sort of kudos as a specialist designation and was applied to more regular troops stationed on the frontiers in a scouting role?

I was intrigued to find an inscription to one man, Audacius Quietus, who besides being a soldier of the numerus exploratorum Batavorum at Cologne, also apparently served as the governor's boatman! (barcarius consularis)...

Thanks for these - time to do some inscription trawling, I see...

As an aside, I wouldn't conclude from the apparent absence of VIIII Batavorum's exploratorum title in the ND indicating that it had therefore lost the title. The ND gives very abbreviated units names: so many units in it that are recorded epigraphically have a longer form in an inscription than they do in the ND...  Take the Cornuti in the eastern section. This would appear to have lost not only its "seniores" label in the ND, but also its "Iovii" (or similar) appellation as well. I could easily spin a tale of how it may have lost the latter, but not so easily the former. The easier conclusion is that the unit's name is just abbreviated.  The ND itself shows so many cases of a long form in one section, and an abbreviated form elsewhere. Case in point: Prima Flavia Gallicana Constantia in one place, Prima Flavia Gallicana in another, plain Constantia in yet another.

As a further aside, as you state above, VIIII Batavorum isn't even recorded as such in the ND: its officer is recorded as the Tribunus cohortis nova batavorum batavis, so it only gets that far by way of textual amendation. A safe amendment in this case - but only because we know a lot about the unit's name from sources external to the document - who would have queried "nova" in the absence of that knowledge?

(PS - is there any way to intercut a previous writer's comments with one's own? I can't figure out how to do this...)

Cheers, Luke