Downgrading the Sixth Victrix.

[romanonick]

I've just read an article about the fourth century restructuring of the army in Britain which seems to suggest that the Sixth Victrix was 'downgraded' to a lower status when the new Comitatensian mobile forces were created.

If this is true how did this affect the Legion ? I was always under the impression that the Legion had always been considered as a crack unit and had a vital part to play in the security of Britain right until the 'end'.

What was the composition of the newly formed mobile forces if the VI was not included ?

The article (a thread from Roman-Britain.ORG) didn't shed any light on these aspects and conversely, raised other questions in my mind if the stated 'facts' were to be accepted. Or am I missing something ?
:?
Romanonick/Nick Deacon.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Nick,

During the 3rd c., many legions sent vexillations to serve with other forces or to act as stop gap defences. Most of these vexillations never returned, but grew into independent units.

At the end of the 3rd c., a mobile field army was created, first out of all cavalry units of the legions, later with crack units gathered 'in the presence' of the emperor. The reason for this was manyfold, but guarding the emperor and creating a defence in depth were the main ones.

Under Contantine at the latest, this evolved into an army reform, where two main classes emerged: the limitanei units that guarded the border as they had done before, and the comitatenses that formed the mobile field army. These units, cavalry as well as infantry (60%) had no fixed station but moved across the empire.

That's very basically what happened, and how the old 'mainstay', the legion, was in fact 'downgraded' if you want.

We don't actually know what happened to the Legio VI. It never stayed as long as to make it into the Notitia Dignitatum. What happened is unknown. It may have been transferred en bloc in earlier times, posssibly even by Constantine (it was this legion that hailed him emperor!), but posssibly even as late as the late 4thc.

[romanonick]

Thanks, Robert.
So could it be reasonably assumed that the VI was 'incorporated' into the comitatensis thereby losing its identity - rather in the same way as individual British infantry regiments have lost individuality over the years having become part of a greater 'whole' ?
Regards,
Nick.

[D B Campbell]

We don't actually know what happened to the Legio VI. It never stayed as long as to make it into the Notitia Dignitatum.

Not. Dig. XL.18: "Praefectus legionis sextae [victricis, Eburaci]"

[romanonick]

Yes, ND illustrates Legio VI as a representation of a fort and not at Eburacum and therefore presumably under the direction of the Dux Britanniarum.
Therefore, any views as to the legion mentioned by the poet Claudian and withdrawn by Stilicho in 401 being the sixth ?
Or was it the other legion (the 2nd) or both? Or indeed the complete package - mobile army and all (apart from a basic 'holding operation' formation consisting of the frontier 'grunts' etc.) :?: :?

Romanonick/Nick deacon.

[Robert Vermaat]

We don't actually know what happened to the Legio VI. It never stayed as long as to make it into the Notitia Dignitatum.

Not. Dig. XL.18: "Praefectus legionis sextae [victricis, Eburaci]"

Ouch, whatta mistake to make! How could I have missed that one, dipping my nose in books that got it all wrong... Now I'm suddenly at a loss how several experts claim that the 6th left.

Apparently there are some scholars around who see the prefect at York either as a skeloton force, maybe a staff only, while others see the legion present, or at least part of it. It may be so that the VIth was divided up along cohortal lines (as was the V Macedonia for instance), creating several smaller new units.

Anyway, what was present in York was relegated to limitanei status, while the IInd went to the comitatenses.

[John Conyard]

I have always favoured the idea that the VI was used the form the basis of other units, and that a much reduced number of troops were left in York. Say 400 men, a typical under strength later formation.

[Robert Vermaat]

I was informed by dr. Ingo Maier that :

Re your recent posting concerning Not. Dig. XL.18: "Praefectus legionis sextae [victricis, Eburaci]" - you were correct the first time. The words victricis eburaci do NOT occur in the compilation "notitia dignitatum": they were editorial interpolations by Seeck for which there is NO evidence in the mutually-independent copies of the absent archetype.

[D B Campbell]

The words victricis eburaci do NOT occur in the compilation "notitia dignitatum": they were editorial interpolations by Seeck for which there is NO evidence in the mutually-independent copies of the absent archetype.

Hence the square brackets, which are universally understood to indicate an interpolation.

We were attempting to demonstrate the continued existence of the VIth legion into the time of the Notitia, which is proven by the existence of its commander at some undisclosed location (if not Eburacum, then where?!).