Late Roman Army Grade/Rank List under Anastasius

[Robert Vermaat]

'Whilst his grade is that of a Flaviales, his rank is that of a Biarchus.'
Not sure - biarchus, like centenarius and ducenarius, seems to be a rank used by guard units and cavalry (scholae and auxilia palatina), not legions. We no more need to start installing biarchi here than we need to start looking for Vegetius's decani!

Yes, you are right about the biarchus. I sort of forget this rank is specific (as far as we know) to the scholae and palatina. I used it some time ago as a caput stand-in and for some reason find it hard to unlearn it. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

I have to get back to this one.

Firstly, how are we sure that a biarchus is limited to scholae and palatinae? Are we saying that Hieronimus' famous list of cavalry ranks was that of a scholae or palatina unit and not of a standard regiment?
How does that fit with one Iovianus, biarchus draconarius (at the same time) of the late 4th c. Octavodalmatae (a vexillationes comitatenses unit)?

Plus this (undated? one of a biarchus decanus from a 'numerus scutatorum':
AE 1951, 30 = AE 1954, 231
Provinz: Pontus et Bithynia Ort: Konuralp / Prusias ad Hypium
D(is) M(anibus) adgredere viator /
obiter sta(n)s et repausa(n)s perlege titulum /
cuius fata et manes vitam peregerunt in /
civitatem Prusiada Val(erius) Titianus bb(iarchus?) decanus /
num(eri) scut(ariorum) natione Dalmata vixit annos XXXXV /
militavit annos XXII fecit memoria(m) Ursus /
ex numero ipso pro fraternitate

A shortlist, some palatini, some not:
P. Würtz 17 – equites clibanarii
BGU 316 – cataphractarii
ILS 2805 – VIII Dalmatae
ILS 2799 – Batavi seniores
ILS 2804 – Bracchiati
CIL v. 6784 – Leones seniores
AE 1946, 42 - Scutarii

That's one of the reasons I still hold with the theory that a biarchus was a caput contubernii (Maurikios' dekarch).

Secondly, I'm still not sure that the centenarius commanded a century. The only examples that we have (procurator centenarius, centenarius portus) seem to point at salary, not command over an amount of something.

---

which military standard was applied or used by the cavalry at the time of the Strategicon (and of course more early, however always focusing the end of the 5th until the early 7th century)?
What was the rank or title called for the officer of a cavalry unit at the end of the 5th and 6th century?

My answer would be the tribunus  as the commanding officer of a new-style unit, which could be a regiment of auxilia palatina or a numerus or anything in between.
The second in command and/or replacement would be the vicarius as the highest non-commissioned officer who could assume command in absence of a tribunus. He was not a strict rank but an ‘acting-tribune’, sometimes even from another unit. The formulaic coupling ‘vicarius vel tribunus’ from a number of sources signified the title of ‘commanding officer’ or ‘officer in charge’ regardless of his actual rank. When an infantry regiment was split into two equal parts, the tribunus commanded the first and the vicarius the second.

The primicerius was the senior NCO (both in old-style as well in new-style units) whose name came first on the regimental muster-roll (matrix).

Maurikios mentioned the ilarch (or the ‘senior hekatontarch’) for the case of a cavalry regiment.

Vegetius mentioned a tribunis minor, which might signify a change in promotion procedured, or he might have had the vicarius in mind.

---

Even units which had a - let's say a proper name before - were simply renamed after the place where they were garissoned now. The 6th century is bit complicated concerning this issue.
When a new unit was deployed at the time of the notitia dignitatum it was technically still a legio, auxilia or something else. When a unit was deployed at the beginning of the reign of Justinian - it was officially a numerus (+name of the city or of the ruling emperor; numerus Iustinianus + many others). In a broader sense, this has already been made earlier (e.g. Constantiniani, Theodosiaci etc).
Anyway, we have strong indication that all numeri followed "nearly" the same concept of tactical strenght and numer of officers - independently if the unit was deployed in egypt or in syria. A kind of "new-legion" was now the regular roman regiment. There was no other designation anymore.
Therefore we cannot compare the time of 400 with that of 500 regarding this topic. What we can say is that a certain evolvement has been begun in the late 4th and early 5th century by calling units generically "numerus" - leading in the result that just old(!) troops kept a kind of epithetos at least up to the early 7th century.

Very interesting! So you're saying that units were simply renamed instead of new units raised with such new designations? How do you explain some 'old' unit names still surviving throughout the 6th c.?

Thanks for your contributions so far!

[ValentinianVictrix]

Even when Ammianus wrote his history he mentions legions that had place name titles, so we must assume that this was occurring from at least the 350's AD, if not much earlier.

[Nathan Ross]

how are we sure that a biarchus is limited to scholae and palatinae?

Sorry, my omission - I meant that these ranks were confined the the new cavalry units (both Equites and Scholae) and the auxilia. Your XI Dalmatorum would be a cavalry vexillation, of course.

[Edit - I see you've added some more examples! But all of them are cavalry or auxilia, except perhaps the numerus scutarii - although the schola scutariorum were probably cavalry, so these could be too...]

This theory rests on some very limited evidence, however! - mainly that the ranks of biarchus, circitor, centenarius and ducenarius appear in inscriptions to the equites, scholae and auxilia palatina but not (as far as I know) in the legions, which seem to have continued using the old (centurio) ordinarius and optio ranks.

I'm still not sure that the centenarius commanded a century. The only examples that we have... seem to point at salary, not command over an amount of something

Originally, I think, both centenarius and ducenarius related to the old equestrian pay grades. These, possibly, were later used to distinguish centurions or other junior officers promoted to the Protectores or to command in the comitatus (this idea suggested, I think, by Hepworth in 'Studies in the Later Roman Army); only later, and for some completely unknown reason (!) did they appear as small unit commanders in the cavalry and auxilia. Perhaps because these units were already part of the comitatus? Don't know...

There are some inscriptions to centenarii in the auxilia though - CIL 05, 08740: [Fl]avio Andiae centenario numeri bracchiatorum ;
CIL 05, 08745: Fl(avius) Diocles ce/ntenarius n(umeri) Ib(er)orum - both from Concordia and dated cAD400.

[Edit 2 - cavalry as well: CIL 13, 01848 - Fl(avi) Ingenui / centenari(i) ex num(ero) eq(uitum) / cataf(ractariorum) sen(iorum) ; CIL 05, 08758 - Fl(avius) Roveos centenarius de equitum comitum / seni(orum) sagit(tariorum) ]

These certainly look like rank titles to me - it's only an assumption that they indicated command of a unit, although Vegetius suggests the rank was equivalent to the Ordinarius.

Vegetius mentioned a tribunis minor, which might signify a change in promotion procedured, or he might have had the vicarius in mind.

I would think so, yes. There's no vicarius listed on the Perge inscription, of course (or a primicerius - or, more troublingly, a aquilifer or other standard bearer for the whole unit...) so the tribunus minor seems to be filling that role.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

On superficial examination, the Strategicon only proves that bandum and numerus, must be evaluated (more or less) synonymous. However, a closer examination shows a differentiation between both termini. Here the bandum with its comites - there the numerus with its tribuni. Here the cavalry - there the infantry. And indeed, I'm able to prove it epigraphically and literary.

I was not implying the Numerus (Arithmos in Greek) was subdivided into Bandons (uh... Banda? Bandoi? Not sure). By the time of Maurikios however, the Bandon is an individual infantry regiment, is it not? I don't quite remember.

The case here is very individual. And the regiment appears to have a very different biography and career. This can be seen also on the basis of many given military honors (augustalis & flaviales), the permanent high rate of cavalry with its own standards, standards of infantry, the officers etc.
Therefore one must consider here the concept of promotion and degradation of whole regiments.
All this unit proves is the plurality of the Roman army at this time. A grievance which Mauricius (Strat.12B) attempts to deal with by harmonizing those troops at least on battle field.

I think this is the real answer - that we're looking at the Late Roman army the wrong way and something I've long suspected. That there was not standardization of the army from the 3rd-6th centuries, but the whole period was an era of constant transofrmation from one standardized system (the Principate Legions and Auxilia of the 1st and 2nd Centuries AD) to another (the Army of the Strategikon).

Anyway, we have strong indication that all numeri followed "nearly" the same concept of tactical strenght and numer of officers - independently if the unit was deployed in egypt or in syria. A kind of "new-legion" was now the regular roman regiment. There was no other designation anymore.
Therefore we cannot compare the time of 400 with that of 500 regarding this topic. What we can say is that a certain evolvement has been begun in the late 4th and early 5th century by calling units generically "numerus" - leading in the result that just old(!) troops kept a kind of epithetos at least up to the early 7th century.

An interesting concept, although we have *some* evidence for a standardized size of unit called a Numerus.

That's one of the reasons I still hold with the theory that a biarchus was a caput contubernii (Maurikios' dekarch).

I had always theorized the Biarchus to be Maurikios' Pentarch (commander of 50 men as bi-arch means commander of half implying half a century?).

Even units which had a - let's say a proper name before - were simply renamed after the place where they were garissoned now. The 6th century is bit complicated concerning this issue.
When a new unit was deployed at the time of the notitia dignitatum it was technically still a legio, auxilia or something else. When a unit was deployed at the beginning of the reign of Justinian - it was officially a numerus (+name of the city or of the ruling emperor; numerus Iustinianus + many others). In a broader sense, this has already been made earlier (e.g. Constantiniani, Theodosiaci etc).
Anyway, we have strong indication that all numeri followed "nearly" the same concept of tactical strenght and numer of officers - independently if the unit was deployed in egypt or in syria. A kind of "new-legion" was now the regular roman regiment. There was no other designation anymore.
Therefore we cannot compare the time of 400 with that of 500 regarding this topic. What we can say is that a certain evolvement has been begun in the late 4th and early 5th century by calling units generically "numerus" - leading in the result that just old(!) troops kept a kind of epithetos at least up to the early 7th century.

I can largely agree with this, although I should mention the Theodosiaci and the Victores as well as V Macedonica both survived into the 7th Century (the former two units were part of the Invasion of Italy in 935).

[Marcel Frederik Schwarze]

Hello Nathan,

I'm not sure - the law you quote refers specifically to individual soldiers (singulos milites) being transferred, not entire units;

my source (cod.theod. VII 1,18) is suggesting indirectly much more than that. It shows also the technical title of pseudo comitatenses. Obviously they were classified as "legion". This is important when we agree - or at least assume - that the old (!) cohors, milites or an ancient numerus were transferred from the border to the mobile army in the same way as it happened to legions.

True. Although they could have come from the 'old style auxiliary' cohortes still based on the frontiers, rather than being 'remodelled' as new-style auxilia, perhaps?

what I mean when I speak about a classical auxillary is always a cohors. All empirical data that I have collected and noted, are showing a military unit which has little to do with a classical legion. But of course, I can be wrong.
How many centuriae (infantry) are in a cohors miliaria equitata? What about the strength of the cavalry (compare with P.Dura 82)

Ah! So you're suggesting that the vexillarii were cavalry standard bearers? That would make sense, although it still leaves us short of cavalry commanders. But there are only 10 of them, and the number of veredarii (if they are indeed cavalry) does not divide equally between them...

We do not know if the tribuni have had some kind of a small guard of horsemen - in this case we could reduce the number for our cavalry groups. We don't know if "here and there" a musician accompanied one of our "turma" and who else stood side by side with them. All this information would change the numbers once more. Furthermore we don't know if one or two of the 5 groups of flaviales and/or augustales belong to the cavalry as well.
This kind of numbers game is exciting, but probably not helpful at the moment.
We should only mark out the framework first before we come to the details. What kind of unit is it? Who are the leaders? Who is leading the sub-units? Is it helpful to learn a bit about the job of the optio in the late 5th and 6th century? And why we have just 10 of them (and not 20)? Is it possible that a group of cavalry was "bonded" administratively to a centuria? What about military instructors of the 6th century? Is it possible that some musicians were just office assitant in the 6th century? What about an overall standard for the entire unit? What about infantry standards and its usage in the very late antiquity?

In slab B there is also described that the μαγιστέρων τῶν δρακωναρίων is responsible for all draconarii - the ὀπτίονας are superviced by the πρινκιπίων - the κανπιδούκτορος is responsible for ἀρματούρους, κορνίκας, τούβικας, βουκινάτοραςto and to carry out the σχολῶν.

____________________________________________________
btw: CIL, V 8745 is dated to the 5th century, not 500AD.
Ernst Diehl, Lateinische christliche Inschriften mit einem Anhang jüdischer Inschriften, 1908, p.34 n. 169; arguments for a date more early (381-400AD) see Maria Cristina La Rocca, Le epigrafi funerarie d’ammonimento di Salona e Concordia Sagittaria, 2014/15, p.136; Damiana Baldassarra, Schedae numerus: EDR097738, 400AD-450AD.

CIL V 8740, suggested between 350-450AD
La Rocca, Le epigrafi funerarie, p. 43


Hello Robert,

That's one of the reasons I still hold with the theory that a biarchus was a caput contubernii (Maurikios' dekarch).

yes, most likely.
Veg II 7 […] Erant decani, denis militibus praepositi, qui nunc caput contubernii uocantur […]; and II 13 […] Rursus ipsae centuriae in contubernia diuisae sunt, ut decem militibus sub uno papilione degentibus unus quasi praeesset decanus, qui caput contubernii nominatur […].
In the Strategicon the tent -or fileleader is known under the name λοχαγους (leader of a λόγος) and δεκαρχους (leader of 10).
The term Decanus is just metonymically, since the same source reports some sentences later that:
a) The file called "primi" stays with the λοχαγους. [8 men]
b) The soldiers of the "secundi" stood under the leadership to the δεκαρχους. [also 8 men]
[Strat12B]
They can fight together and be mingled into one large file, 16 deep. But even then, they were always 2 files with 8 men.

The file is closed by the Uragus (οὐραγόν) - who takes care that the file is strong, stays in formation and that nobody is running away. In the worst case, when the enemy comes from behind, the file-closer is able to take the leadership of the entire file. Could this be our circitor? Is this represented on slab C as well?

Another interesting Papyri (P.Abinn.42), 326-375AD is documentating an order, most likely even a warning, from the ducenarius Romanus to his contubernalis Geladius (Decanus or caput contubernii?)in the name of ἀδελφῷ πριμικῆρι τῆς οὐιξιλλατίωνος. I personally would expect a kind of nco between a ducenarius (centurion/ordinarius) and a small regular soldier. Therefore the κοντουβερνάλιον is most likely the file-leader.  

concerning the leadership of cavalry:

Maurikios mentioned the ilarch (or the ‘senior hekatontarch’) for the case of a cavalry regiment.[/font][/size]

Your upper statement could be the next step to evaluate the leadership of our small - let's call it turmae (10each) - even if it wasn't. Or was it?
a centenarius for cavalry:
stud.pal.20.139, 531AD […] κεντηναρίῳ ἀριθμοῦ τῶν γενναι[ο]τάτων λεόνων [κλιβαναρίων […]

Interesting as well is that in slabB 55 the ordinarii are called πρινκιπίων (principes).

Very interesting! So you're saying that units were simply renamed instead of new units raised with such new designations? How do you explain some 'old' unit names still surviving throughout the 6th c.?

Yes, some units were evidently renamed, esp. in byzantine italy - on the other hand I know very well that other units kept their name for at least another 150 years. But that's not the most important part of my statement. With my analogy I just want show that traditional names disappered more and more.
And of course, many units were deployed after the Strategicon was written. But I fear that the majority was just named by numbers - later in combination with their "theme", e.g. the 2nd bandon of anatolikon etc. That some units like Theodosiaci or the Victores are mentioned late in history is true, however there is of course no proof that they have anything to do with its ancient namesake (even if I like the idea). But the part about east-roman theme-units and ancient surviving elements of the famous tagmata is another story and should not be discussed here, otherwise the overview is gone quickly.

[Nathan Ross]

How many centuriae (infantry) are in a cohors miliaria equitata? What about the strength of the cavalry (compare with P.Dura 82)

Ah yes, 223 cavalry in a unit of 914 for Cohors XX Palmyrenorum - interesting!

This kind of numbers game is exciting, but probably not helpful at the moment.

Yes, but I enjoy excitement

(Plus, this inscription is, as far as I know, the only breakdown of numbers for a full-strength military unit from any point in Roman history, which makes trying to do the sums rather unavoidable!)

Is it helpful to learn a bit about the job of the optio in the late 5th and 6th century? And why we have just 10 of them (and not 20)?

Hmm, yes.

I did wonder whether the vexillarii, rather than being standard bearers, were actually cavalry commanders - just as the ordinarii lead the infantry ordines, so the vexillarii lead the cavalry vexillationes. In which case the optiones could be deputies to the vexillarii...

We could imagine nine of the vexillarii each commanding a unit of 25 horsemen, with the tenth commanding a double-strength unit of 50 horsemen under the overall command of one of the tribuni (tribunus minor, with the maior leading the infantry?)

The problem with this is that a cavalry vexillatio was supposedly several hundred men strong, not c.25. Also, these men seem to be rather too far down the pay scale to be small unit commanders.

What about military instructors of the 6th century?

Yes, I've been wondering what happened to the campidoctors, as they were so prominent in the 4th century. Perhaps they were renamed Augustales, as the prestige and duties of their rank expanded from mere training?

In slab B there is also described that the μαγιστέρων τῶν δρακωναρίων is responsible for all draconarii - the ὀπτίονας are superviced by the πρινκιπίων - the κανπιδούκτορος is responsible for ἀρματούρους, κορνίκας, τούβικας, βουκινάτοραςto and to carry out the σχολῶν.

Marcel, for the benefit of those of us who can't read Greek (I'm sure I'm not the only one!), do you think you could provide transliterations of these words? It would be very helpful!

Draconarii, though - that's interesting. What might their title be on Slab C?

Robert VermaatThat's one of the reasons I still hold with the theory that a biarchus was a caput contubernii (Maurikios' dekarch).
yes, most likely.

I don't know... I still think that biarchus belongs to a different schema of ranks to the ones we're looking at here, so it's better not to confuse them. Vegetius calls the man a decanus, Maurikios calls him a dekarch, and that seems a good enough title for a contubernium or small subunit leader.

Another interesting Papyri (P.Abinn.42), 326-375AD is documentating an order, most likely even a warning, from the ducenarius Romanus to his contubernalis Geladius (Decanus or caput contubernii?)in the name of ἀδελφῷ πριμικῆρι τῆς οὐιξιλλατίωνος. I personally would expect a kind of nco between a ducenarius (centurion/ordinarius) and a small regular soldier. Therefore the κοντουβερνάλιον is most likely the file-leader.  

But Abinnaeus was commander of a cavalry ala, I think, so the ranks mentioned in the archive would be cavalry ranks, not infantry ones - unless this document concerns another unit... 'contubernalis' was just a way of saying 'fellow soldier' wasn't it, rather than a rank in itself?

I'm still not convinced that the Veredarii were cavalry. Why the strange name? The word means a mounted messenger or despatch rider, and appears in Procopius with that same meaning, so why would the legion cavalry have ended up being called this?

Alternatively, perhaps the Veredarii could have been a grade of (light?) infantry, no more 'despatch riders' than the bracchiati are 'armband wearers' (?) or the torquati 'torque wearers'.

I'm keen on this idea, as if we keep the Veredarii on the infantry books the legion breaks up rather neatly, with a bit speculation.

Here it is, based on a minimum size (159 munifices), at a strength of 1280 men (this is to try and bring it close to the usual estimate for a late legion; more munifices would make for a bigger overall number!):

   

(I've adapted the graphic from Gary Brueggeman's excellent site)

Each century of 60 men has either an imaginifer or vexillarius, with a signifer (at the front) and an optio (at the back) for each double century.

The 'office staff' (praeco, beneficiarii, mensores and librarii) are not included on the century rolls, but the musicians are.

Obviously there's not one musician per century, so I've arranged them at points in the overall array - the two bucinators at the front relay messages from the tribune to the four tubicens stationed between the century blocks to the eight cornicens at the rear. These musicians should be on the century rolls, so positioned like this they would leave random gaps in the centuries, but that was too fiddly to work out!

The 'clerici ve deputati' are still an unknown quantity, so I've added a nominal 8 of them - although they're not on the century rolls, so they're just to make up a round number.

Anyway, maybe complete nonsense, but fun nonetheless!

[Marcel Frederik Schwarze]

Nathan, your drawing looks really very beautiful. And maybe this is the solution. Who knows.
I personally always go with the signs and symbols of the Strategicon. But your grafic is of course more attractive to the eyes of the reader.
Marcus Junkelmann (in: Die Reiter Roms, esp part 2, page 134/135) offers similar fine painted horses and soldiers.
 
cavalry&veredarii
Let me say first that I'm aware of the cursus publicus.
Yet, the veredarius was not (necessarily) just a messenger. He was a fast hunter.
Veredus is also the etymon of German Pferd (horse).

a. We know the numerus burgariorum et veredariorum at Praetorium, the camp was destroyed during or after an armed conflict. (compare IDR 2 588 = CIL III 13796)
stables and barracks are evidenced.
b. Pannonian veredarii appear as an active combat group in Hyginus De mun. castr. 30 [...] Pannonii veredarii DCCC [...] - after all 800 men.
c. ibid 24, veredarii support and protect other military troops  
d. ILS 9181 [...] in h.d.d. Genio / veredariorum n.M.[...] - a small cavalry troop of veredarii is supporting the numerus Nidensium at Kaspersburg (CIL XIII 7439, most likely messengers, however connected to the local numerus and very military). stables and barracks are evidenced, furthermore a steel has survived which which I saw with my own eyes, it shows a group of horses behind a woman.
e. and a light source at the end. A poem speak about the fast "hunter".:
Valerius Martialis Prisco, XII, 14 [...] Parcius utaris, moneo, rapiente veredo / Prisce, nec in lepores tam violentus eas. [...]

It is interesting that all veredarii which are evidenced by inscriptions belong to the ancient numeri - at least those I have observed.
In the middle of the third century the old ancient (barbarian) numeri began to equalize their internal structer with those of gentile Roman troops. During the reign of Alexander Severus the old numeri got their own officium praepositi.

We know about several numeri who received another classification during the 3rd or early 4th centuries. For example the old numerus equitum sarmatarum - became the cuneus sarmatarum, the ancient numerus palmyrenorum became a cuneus and an ala (ND Or VII 34; XXXI 49).

And of course it is possible that our Perge-unit has preserved the ancient smallest tactical body of cavalry with round about (+/-) 30 soldiers - the turmae. In the Strategicon the cavalry is divided in several hekatontarchiai and commanded by the hekatontarchos (which is the centenarios for new-styled units) or centurion (for old units) - furthermore they are subdivided in smaller files, in the same way like the infantry, the leader is the decarchus, another soldier behind him is pentarchus, and finally we find again the uragus (the file closer).  
The Strategicon must be carefully handled - since it just describes the battle order after the arrival of all troops on battle field. It doesn't describe the internal structure of our regiments! This was never the aim of Mauricius.
The troops are put into ad-hoc tagmas - albeit we can get some information indirectly by observing the file structure as given in the Strategicon.

Sources for a cavalry-centenatius are given in one of my upper posts.

campiductor
In Slab B one can read that there is just one campiductor, and he is responsible for all other instuctors and for the training in general. Since I have evaluated and translated all slabs long time ago I can tell you that those people are the Armaturae Duplares and their deputies (Armaturae semissales). We know that the campiductor was one of the most important people in the regiment. So, we have 2 options now. Either it is the tribunus minor, or the first of all ordinarii. Since all ordinarii get the same anonnae I would say we go with the first option. However, it is also possible that the "role" or "task" of the campiductor went from one soldier to the next in a kind of cyclic procedure - a kind of honour which was indeed not better paid. Possible.  

optio
Since the last man, the file-closer or Uragus of a file was reponsible to take care for the rear-side of the file (see my upper post about his exact jobs) - the optio wasn't needed anymore. We see a shift from an active soldier to a kind of deputy of the principes of the centuriae. In other words, the optio was now the right hand of the centurion in administrative issues.

Optio Abraham - he checks the ἀννώνας (annona) of his contubernii (the files). = O.Douch 2 61
Furthermore their job was the distribution and securing of food supply.  = SB 6 9455 Herakleopolis
And since we just find 10 of them regarding our Perge-unit, they were most likely responsible for a cavalry unit as well - administratively attached to the corresponding centuria.

The New-Optio can most likely be indentified with the former actuarius.
He (the actuarius) was civil servant and responsible for the food supply,
they confirm the death of a soldier for the wives/widows with a kind of document (Nov Iust CXVII 11),
they calculated the needed food for the next weeks (Cod. Theod. VII, 4, 13),
they were responsible for the payment of money to the soldiers (Cod Iust XII 37, 16).
Finally they can be identified with the optiones (cod. Theod. VII, 4, 24) [...] actuarios vel optiones [...].
Even the optio wrote a kind of "death-certificate" for the widow of a cavalry soldier (Nov Iust CXVII 11) and he demanded or arose a sportulae for his service in the same way like the actuarius did - means: he took money from the soldiers and the state for his job (a fifteenth = 1/15) - a procedure already at that time often criticized and sometimes punished. Thanks to Justinian we get the first time a quite good overview about the different "provisions-officers".
The titel actuarius is used for the scholae units, optio for the foederatii and the chartularios for numeri and foederati.
[...] primis scholae et actuario, si autem foederatus, ab optione [...] (Nov Iust CXVII 11).
The χαρτουλαριων was responsible for the γενναιοτατων αριθμον and φοιδερατοι (Cod Iust XII 37, 19). Since slab C mentions the task or role of the soldiers, not the actual rank, it is possible once more that another name is hidden behind our Perge-optio - it was the actuarius, chartularius or even the optio.

file leader
λοχαγους (lochagus) is the file leader of the κοντουβερνάλιος (contuberni),  for infantry & cavalry. Both groups are commanded by either the κεντηναρίῳ (centenarius) or κεντυρίων (centurion) - depending if it's an old unit or a regiment following a new style of internal order. Mauricius tries to establish a kind of pattern to integrate all units into an equal system. Vegetius calls the file leader decanus and caput contubernii, so obviously the same.

Hieronymus (PL XXIII) contra iohannem hierosolym [...] tiro, eques, circitor, biarchus, centenarius, ducenarius, Senator, primicerius, tribunus [...]

The biarchus is listed directly behind the centenarius. If a file leader was existing, then he was most likely called biarchus in new-styled units and decanus or caput contubernii in units following the old structure. Esp. the decanus get a transformation of the word (like many others as well) and is named in its graeco-latin version dekarchos or decarchus.   Biarchus and Circitor are recorded in infantry as well as cavalry units. But I agree that this is a minor issue at the moment. We could however think about the option that the file-closer (uragus) is connected to the circitor (see post above).  

banners&flags
long topic. I would like to hear the opinion of all readers why a unit (true legion, ancient numerus or cohors miliaria equitata) has a need of 10 imaginifer.
by the way, slab B (as metioned with sources in my post above) calls the magister draconum as supervisor for all other draconarii. But he is most likely just one of the 30 standard bearers displayed on slab C. We know today that certain groups within a military unit have established Collegia, a procedure lasting until the 6th century.

[Nathan Ross]

Thanks Marcel - a wealth of very valuable and interesting information there!

cavalry&veredarii

I was aware of the mention in Hyginus, but not of the inscriptions you cited - very good, and I'm now far more convinced that the veredarii were indeed horsemen! Perhaps originally, as you suggest, a sort of 'barbarian' or irregular light horseman or hunter, but later apparently standardised in some way...

a cavalry unit as well - administratively attached to the corresponding centuria.

Yes, this seems likely.

I still think it cannot be a coincidence that the numbers listed on Slab C add up so neatly. If you add all of the various 'soldier' grades (including the veredarii), the standard bearers and optiones, the musicians and the surviving number of munifices you arrive at 1140. That this apparently random selection of numbers should total a figure that divides exactly by 20 seems telling.

If you remove the 275 veredarii, the resulting figure does not divide by 20. Increasing the munifices by increments of 100 only enlarges the subunit size.

We might assume quite reasonably, then, that all the 'soldiers' were part of the 20 subunits ('centuries') led by the ordinarii. The only question then would be how these subunits might have been organised.

Biarchus and Circitor are recorded in infantry as well as cavalry units.

Are any of these infantry units clearly legions, or are they auxilia?

I would like to hear the opinion of all readers why a unit (true legion, ancient numerus or cohors miliaria equitata) has a need of 10 imaginifer.

If we follow the idea that the veredarii were carried on the century rolls, and they were led by the 10 vexillarii, then we seem to be looking at two different sorts of century within the legion. One group would be 'led' by the signifers (the senior standard bearers) and the other group by the imaginifers (the junior standard bearers), with the attached cavalry units being led by the vexillarii.

Here's how it might work, (with a bit of 'creative license'!):

Ordinarii 1-10 lead traditonal infantry centuries, consisting of 80 men, a signifer and an optio (the latter being perhaps admin guy for the 'double century') - total 82 men per century.

Ordinarii 11-19 lead 55 infantrymen, with an imaginifer, and 25 Veredarii Alii horsemen, with a vexillarius - total 82 men

Ordinarius 20 leads 50 senior Veredarii, with a vexillarius, and 30 infantry with an imaginifer (these 30 perhaps including the musicians and other 'specialists'), - total 82 men.

The musicians would take up a 2 - 4 - 8 position in the array as I suggested before, allowing them to relay orders from the tribune at the front to the men at the rear.

The legion 'on parade' might look a bit like this:

   

Total number (plus officers and 'staff', at 559 munifices and a nominal 8 clerici) would be 1680, of which 1640 are fighting men in the ranks. I went for a larger century size to balance out the number of horsemen!

If this (or something like it) is the case, then I really don't think we're looking at a Legio Palatina here (I don't know of any suggestions that they had integral cavalry 'hunters', and seem to have been smaller overall).

Instead this looks rather like the remains of a (Diocletianic?) frontier legion, perhaps taken into the pseudocomitatensis, or a limitanei unit perhaps formed on the remains of an old cohors equitata; this is probably what you were suggesting above, Marcel.

[Marcel Frederik Schwarze]

Instead this looks rather like the remains of a (Diocletianic?) frontier legion, perhaps taken into the pseudocomitatensis, or a limitanei unit perhaps formed on the remains of an old cohors equitata; this is probably what you were suggesting above, Marcel.

Yes, I am convinced that we have to look at the frontier to clarify the origin of our unit. Since Limitanei played also an active role during the reconquest of the West, it is quite possible that Anastasius had erected these slabs even for such a unit. Differences regarding the quality of units must be considered geographycally and of time frame. The burgarii and castrenses in the late 5th and 6th centuries are more like a local militia. Limitanei however, were still important enough. The Limitanei on the Danube appear quite robust. The units in Egypt seem quite vital and lively - this is at least based on papyrology. The units on the Arab front act differently. This must however be considered in a different context.
Since the units in the east of the empire were still intact and had a (relatively) good infrastructure, it is quite possible to find a regiment of Limitanei in Perge.
I remember an Egyptian papyrus of the 6th century in which a soldier of a frontier unit asked his commander to leave him in the city - and not take him to the long campaign (with Belisarius?) because his mother is sick and needs his help.

Attached to this post there's another schematic of a possible deployment. The number is matching so far slab c regaring our flaviales as file-closers, the augustales as front-rankers + file leaders.

Concerning biarchi et circitores.
I'm sure that they never appeared in classical legions. I had problems enough to find an example for a circitor serving in a infantry unit.
CIL XIII 7298 [...] circ(itor) n(umerus) Catharensum [...]
Acc. ND Occ. VII 62 the Catarienses were peudocomitatenses.

Following the theory that all units transferred into the pseudocomitatensian group were classified officially as legio (esp. old numeri and old auxillaries like cohors) - then it's possible that those new "pseudo-legions" kept their internal organisation, at least in parts - and then centenarii, biarchi and circitores were were still valid ranks and titles.

I failed to find a general standard for the entire Perge-unit, something I would expect when we speak about a real legion. A single "bird-bearer", aquilifer, or a 4th century-draconarius. I'm sure that parent units kept their eagle far into the 5th century ... and the detachments had at least a general vexillum or banner. But this general standard is missing as well.
In my schematic our centuries carry a linen cloth, most likely used by cohors and old numeri. The cavalry has a kind of flammula, a flag with streamers.

The first centuria has the dragon - given to them when the unit was promoted. At least this is completely speculative - however a beautiful thought.

[Nathan Ross]

I remember an Egyptian papyrus of the 6th century in which a soldier of a frontier unit asked his commander to leave him in the city - and not take him to the long campaign (with Belisarius?) because his mother is sick and needs his help.

I think there's something similar in the Abbinaeus archive as well - a new recruit asking to be assigned to a local unit rather than being sent abroad? (in those days, garrison units must have stayed in one place more often!)

Concerning biarchi et circitores... the Catarienses were peudocomitatenses.

Ah yes, I'd assumed that was another auxila numerus, but you could be right!

As for biarchi, the earliest one seems to be AE 1922, 00072, a biarchus of the sacro palatio, who fell in battle at Calchedon - Speidel's suggestion that this was a trooper of Licinius's horse guard who died at Chrysopolis in 324 seems persuasive.

There are also biarchi serving in the fabricae, I notice, although otherwise they appear to be restricted to the cavalry equites, scholae and auxilia - why the latter should have adopted what seems to be cavalry ranks I don't know.

Attached to this post there's another schematic of a possible deployment. The number is matching so far slab c regaring our flaviales as file-closers, the augustales as front-rankers + file leaders.

Very nice! The positioning of Augustales and Flaviales in this way would make sense. Although you only appear to have 18 subunits commanded by ordinarii, I notice...

[Marcel Frederik Schwarze]

Very nice! The positioning of Augustales and Flaviales in this way would make sense. Although you only appear to have 18 subunits commanded by ordinarii, I notice...

Oh, sorry. Wrong version.
Right one attached.
...and corniculares etc are also missing.

[Steven James]

Hello Marcel,
 
Curious as to how you have determined a cavalry squadron is 36 men, and why are they arrayed five horses wide by seven horses deep? Also why attach 360 cavalry to 800 infantry?
 
If these questions are too inquisitive and will reveal more of your research, I will understand if you do not wish to answer them.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I think there's something similar in the Abbinaeus archive as well - a new recruit asking to be assigned to a local unit rather than being sent abroad? (in those days, garrison units must have stayed in one place more often!)

They did. The Nov. Val. shows this issue in 445 and it eventually leads to the development of the Akritai system.

[Robert Vermaat]

A nice article that floated by yesterday gave me some additional questions:
Amin Benaissa: A recruit’s enrolment in a military unit and a new dux Thebaidis, in: Mélanges Jean Gascou: textes et études papyrologiques (P.Gascou), Travaux et Mémoires du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance 20/1 (Paris 2016). pp 55-64:
https://www.academia.edu/27956832/A_Recr..._Thebaidis

It's about a probatoria of a new recruit for the Mauri Scutarii stationed in Hermopolis in 514. Interesting is that the papyrus is signed by the acturarius of the unit, but countersigned by the eight (!) senior officers (priores) of the unit. The only literate being the ordinarius et auditor.
So any idea who these 8 priores were? Do they fit with our current view of the unit?

---

Also by the same author a very intersting article about some officers being styled 'magister' (primi as well as secundi), are also attested as officiales on the staff of the dux of the Thebaid in some documents from the archive of Dioscorus of Aphrodito: https://www.academia.edu/1005431/An_Arsi...itary_Unit

[Nathan Ross]

A nice article that floated by yesterday

I saw that yesterday too - must have been doing the rounds!

the papyrus is signed by the acturarius of the unit, but countersigned by the eight (!) senior officers (priores) of the unit. The only literate being the ordinarius et auditor.

I think the 8 priores are from the other papyrus mentioned in the paper - P.Munich 2 from AD578. The one under discussion, from 514, just has the actuarius doing everything; it also seems to concern a cavalry unit (the Mauri Scutarii).

Again, it's interesting to see just how long these ranks and titles from the later principiate endured!

any idea who these 8 priores were? Do they fit with our current view of the unit?

If we go with Francis's theory above that the 20 ordinarii of the Perge unit were divided into priores and posteriores - and it does seem that there must have been some sort of 10/10 division or difference within them, based on the numbers of standard bearers - then maybe these 8 could be the number of priores remaining in a slightly reduced unit (the other two on detachment, or otherwise missing)?