Magistri militum question

[Razor]

I have a question that bothers me for a looong time (that's probably why I can't sleep right now):

How come the Notitia Dignitatum mentions both 'Magister peditum in praesenti' and 'Magister equitum in praesenti' for the western Roman empire? :?

I was always under the impression that Stilicho was Magister militum as in two offices combined into one: Magister utriusque militae. (Assuming that the Notitia Dignitatum dates from around 400 ad.)

Any kind of order in this chaos inside of my head would be very much appreciated :wink:

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

IIRC when the offices were originally created (by Constantine?) the Magister Peditum was senior to the Magister Equitum so Stilicho holding the senior rank is not an oddity.

For some reason, possibly political, the east made all the senior army commanders more equal - although the two praesental commnders were senior.

[Razor]

But... who was holding the office of Magister equitum (in praesenti, not per Gallias) when Stilicho held the senior office? I always read about Stilicho as the one and only Magister militum in the west. But I have yet to figure out who was the Magister equitum. :?:

Coming to think of it, who was holding the rank of Magister equitum per Gallias after Allobich died in 410?
Could Flavius Gaudentius be a candidate?

So many gaps and questions, so few info hard for me to find...

[sonic]

But... who was holding the office of Magister equitum (in praesenti, not per Gallias) when Stilicho held the senior office? I always read about Stilicho as the one and only Magister militum in the west. But I have yet to figure out who was the Magister equitum. :?:

Coming to think of it, who was holding the rank of Magister equitum per Gallias after Allobich died in 410?
Could Flavius Gaudentius be a candidate?

So many gaps and questions, so few info hard for me to find...

I have been doing a lot of reading and thinking recently and have come to the conclusion that, possibly, the military hierarchy as seen in the Notitia and by modern scholars was not a 'fully-formed' ranking system along modern military lines, but was more a guideline to what should be happening.

However, I think that at least some of the posts were not continuously filled, possibly being held in reserve to reward favourites etc., and that some of those that were filled were occupied by men who did not travel to the province in question but remained in Rome/Ravenna etc where they could safeguard their political and military careers. After all, if you were not with the Emperor, then your enemies could undermine your position. This would in some ways help to explain the military inactivity of some of the military leaders when their provinces were invaded.

Furthermore, when individuals such as Stilicho, Aetius etc. appeared, they would occupy the office of one/both/all of the senior military posts, so ensuring that there was no official in a position to usurp their status as de facto leader of the Empire. In such a case, if Stilicho was the Magister Peditum, there would be no Magister Equitum, since Stilicho would by default occupy both posts.

However, I still have a lot of thinking to do!! :?

[Razor]

Ah, wait, you mean that if one powerful man was given the rank of Magister militum, he would have prevented others becoming a Magister militum next to him, meaning: you have a rank named Magister militum or Magister utriusque militae. If not you could again have a divided command with a senior Magister peditum and a junior Magister equitum...? :roll:

[Robert Vermaat]

I'm thinking that Stilicho could occupy both posts at the same time, without one of them having to be erased at the same time. Stilicho was apparently the first to fill both, which might give us two posssible situations.

1) the ND was written down around the death of Theodosius, and Stilicho had not yet usurped both posts.

2) Stilicho filled both posts already but that did not yet lead to a change in the very command structure. His name could then be entered behind both functions. Only years later would his 'new' function of Magister militum utrisque militae become a new post.

Btw, the title 'magister militum' is fairly commonly used by the sources and was used for every magister, be it the CIC or a regional commander.

[sonic]

I'm thinking that Stilicho could occupy both posts at the same time, without one of them having to be erased at the same time. Stilicho was apparently the first to fill both, which might give us two posssible situations.

1) the ND was written down around the death of Theodosius, and Stilicho had not yet usurped both posts.

2) Stilicho filled both posts already but that did not yet lead to a change in the very command structure. His name could then be entered behind both functions. Only years later would his 'new' function of Magister militum utrisque militae become a new post.

Btw, the title 'magister militum' is fairly commonly used by the sources and was used for every magister, be it the CIC or a regional commander.

I agree on all of these points, but in addition I don't see why everybody assumes that all posts were filled at all times. If you don't want a rival, then don't promote anybody to higher posts whenever this can be avoided. This keeps your opponents on their toes and unsure of what you are going to do next, offers the prospect of a post to anybody who is undecided - if all posts are filled, then there is no offer without upsetting someone by 'demoting' them - and allows you to offer incentives and rewards to those who are loyal - or at east, the hope of reward!!

Further, if you are the Magister Equitum and the Magister Peditum, this can easily lead to excessive jealousy as rivals see no hope of advancement. If you leave the post vacant, there is doubt in your opponents mind as to who will be promoted to fill it, and you can be clever in your political overtures to stop opponents becoming too strong by using it as bait.

The leaving of posts vacant could, in many respects, also help to explain the inactivity of large numbers of units in the army when faced with invasion etc.

[Robert Vermaat]

I agree on all of these points, but in addition I don't see why everybody assumes that all posts were filled at all times.

Very true.
Btw it was not my assumption, just a theory 'if' Stilicho indeed had filled both posts 'or' a combination of both.

[sonic]

I agree on all of these points, but in addition I don't see why everybody assumes that all posts were filled at all times.

Btw it was not my assumption, just a theory 'if' Stilicho indeed had filled both posts 'or' a combination of both.

Actually, when I said 'assumed' I was referring to the majority of ancient historians I have read, not you!! :lol:

[Natuspardo]

Sorry for my late reply, but I think I could clarify some things.
First: The starting point for any study in late Roman offices is the The Prosopography of the later Roman Empire. I give the full citation below. Of course the PLRE as it is called sometimes has to make good guesses only ...

What I could tell from it is as follows:

Magister praesentales II (magister equitum) for the West during Stilichos time:
Iacobus I - 401-402
Vincentius I - 408 Aug. 13 (killed in the mutiny against Stilicho, (Zosimus 5.32)

Magister equitum per Gallias
Gaudentius 5 - sometime between 399 and 425
Sarus ? - 407
Chariobaudes - 408 Aug. 13 (killed in the mutiny)

other Magistri militum of the west:
Gildo in Africa - 386-398
Pulcher (unknown if East or West) - 395/401

Comites Domesticorum:
Salvius 1 - 408 Aug. 13 (yes - u know it already: killed in the mutiny)




_____________________________
PLRE 1 = Jones, Arnold H. M. / Martindale John R. / Morris John, The Prosopography of the later Roman Empire, Bd. 1, Cambridge 1975 (Reprint).
PLRE 2 = Martindale, John R., The Prosopography of the later Roman Empire, Bd. 2, Cambridge 1980.
PLRE 3,1 = Martindale, John R., The Prosopography of the later Roman Empire, Bd. 3,1, Cambridge 1992.
PLRE 3,2 = Martindale, John R., The Prosopography of the later Roman Empire, Bd. 3,2, Cambridge 1992.

[sonic]

Sorry for my late reply, but I think I could clarify some things.
First: The starting point for any study in late Roman offices is the The Prosopography of the later Roman Empire. I give the full citation below. Of course the PLRE as it is called sometimes has to make good guesses only ...

What I could tell from it is as follows:

Magister preasentales II (magister equitum) for the West during Stilichos time:
Iacobus I - 401-402
Vincentius I - 408 Aug. 13 (killed in the mutiny against Stilicho, (Zosimus 5.32)

Magister equitum per Gallias
Gaudentius 5 - sometime between 399 and 425
Sarus ? - 407
Chariobaudes - 408 Aug. 13 (killed in the mutiny)

other Magistri militum of the west:
Gildo in Africa - 386-398
Pulcher (unknown if East or West) - 395/401

Comites Domesticorum:
Salvius 1 - 408 Aug. 13 (yes - u know it already: killed in the mutiny)




_____________________________
PLRE 1 = Jones, Arnold H. M. / Martindale John R. / Morris John, The Prosopography of the later Roman Empire, Bd. 1, Cambridge 1975 (Reprint).
PLRE 2 = Martindale, John R., The Prosopography of the later Roman Empire, Bd. 2, Cambridge 1980.
PLRE 3,1 = Martindale, John R., The Prosopography of the later Roman Empire, Bd. 3,1, Cambridge 1992.
PLRE 3,2 = Martindale, John R., The Prosopography of the later Roman Empire, Bd. 3,2, Cambridge 1992.

Thanks for coming in!!

Question: what is the rank given for Stilicho at the same time? Magister Militum, Magister Militum per Italia or something along the lines of Magister utriusque Militiae?

I suppose I'll have to buy the PLRE! Pity it's so darned expensive!!

[Natuspardo]

Question: what is the rank given for Stilicho at the same time? Magister Militum, Magister Militum per Italia or something along the lines of Magister utriusque Militiae?

the PLRE lists Stilicho under
Magistri praesentales I (magistri peditum; patricii)
In the sources his titles vary of course, because unlike the Notitia they are no official documents.

I suppose I'll have to buy the PLRE! Pity it's so darned expensive!!

No good library close to you?