Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Late Roman Army - seniores and iuniores
#29
(03-03-2016, 02:25 AM)Steven James Wrote:
(03-02-2016, 12:15 PM)Robert Vermaat Wrote: Meaning; we can't trust the military sources to give us 100% correct details and allowing us to draw conclusions from them. Sad

How can this approach be helpful in investigating the primary sources? Sad Unfortunately, this concept is endemic. From my years on this forum, time and time again I read postings rejecting details found in the primary sources that in the end result in self imposed barriers being constructed that prevent discovery. Could it be that it is the details in the primary sources that are not being correctly understood?

I can understand your reactions Steven but in this case you're overreacting.
My statement was a bit limited - but not that limited. So, once more: of course I don't reject (military) sources. I was just demoaning the fact that the Roman military is not in any way similar to, say, the German army of WWII. the Romans don't tell us how long a spear is, what they mean by a 'semispatha', or the correct name of the 'lorica squamata'. Or, for that matter, what a 'dux' is by c. 180 Ad and what he commands. Or consistantly use the correct forms for all the late Roman grades and ranks.

So please don't use me as an example for people who reject sources if they don't fit their theory, for I can recall several discussions between the two of us in which you were quite ready to do just that. Wink

(03-02-2016, 02:12 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote:
(03-02-2016, 12:15 PM)Robert Vermaat Wrote: But how about a third detachment? Another iuniores?

Iuniores Gallicani! [Image: smile.png]

(not used previously, perhaps, as the situation in Gaul was fine at the time and the army there required no dedicated reinforcement?)

I can't live with that option. Either you have a system in which you want to distinguish between parent unit and detachmentss or you don't.
In case of the former I'd expect not 'iuniores' but perhaps 'secundani' etc. Because vexallations from a parent unit happened more often.
In case of the latter you can use anything and it did not matter anyway.

However, we seem to have only 'seniores' and 'iuniores' (sometimes only one of the two) and no more. That would either point to a split of the unit that happened only once (and I'm not in favour of that theory) or that there was no real 'system' and those names were awarded at random.
And maybe (I hope not!!) some 'iuniores' units of the same name are really not one and the same detachment unit, but all different detachments from one similar parent unit: one 'Septimani seniores' and several 'Septimani iuniores'!!
Dodgy

(03-03-2016, 12:39 PM)nikgaukroger Wrote: I too dislike the idea of the units being split in half, although the cadre idea I have little issue with and may be more likely for the auxilia palatina who have no "parent" body to be split off from in the way the old legiones do.


Agreed.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Late Roman Army - seniores and iuniores - by Robert Vermaat - 03-03-2016, 02:20 PM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Late Roman Army during the 5th century Robert Vermaat 89 17,312 01-11-2024, 04:34 PM
Last Post: Magister_Officiorum13241
  Late Roman Army Ranks - Numeri/Limitanei jmsilvacross 14 1,742 11-17-2021, 01:42 PM
Last Post: Steven James
  Seniores and Iuniores (again) Colonel Chabert 23 3,432 01-09-2021, 12:42 AM
Last Post: Nathan Ross

Forum Jump: