A question about late Roman infantry...

[Spartan198]

How long after the fall of the Western Empire did the comitatensis infantryman remain in use? What took his place?

I've asked elsewhere (in addition to searching everywhere I can think of, both on the web and in my local library), but so far no one has seemed to know. It's just something I've been wondering.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Spartan (mind your signature!!), could you clarify what you mean exactly by the comitatensis infantryman? The comitatenses infantry were operating just like the other Roman infantry, the only difference being that they were not encamped along the borders but in the hinterland as a defence in depth. Oh, and they received more pay. As far as I know, these tactics remained the same in the East until Heraklios invented the military Themes in the mid-7th century, which saw the rise of a more local defence.

[Spartan198]

"Comitatenses" as in the spatha-equipped Imperial legionary after the reforms of Diocletian (I think) in the 2nd century AD.

The guy on the left in this pic ~


I had thought the word was used specifically to describe the Imperial legionary (beside the Limitanei) of the period. Or am I incorrect there?

I did register here to learn, after all.

[Robert Vermaat]

"Comitatenses" as in the spatha-equipped Imperial legionary after the reforms of Diocletian (I think) in the 2nd century AD.
I had thought the word was used specifically to describe the Imperial legionary (beside the Limitanei) of the period. Or am I incorrect there?

I'd say not so much Diocletian (late 3rd century) but rather Constantine is credited with the modernisation of the Roman army which produced the more fixed border troops (Limitanei) vs. the so-called 'mobile' field army (Comitatenses).

Comitatenses are equipped liked the Limitanei, although their higher pay would mean in general better equipment. Both could be Germanic volunteers as well as Romans. Both were 'imperial legionaries', equipped with spear, shield, spatha.

[Timotheus]

"Comitatenses" as in the spatha-equipped Imperial legionary after the reforms of Diocletian (I think) in the 2nd century AD.
I had thought the word was used specifically to describe the Imperial legionary (beside the Limitanei) of the period. Or am I incorrect there?

I'd say not so much Diocletian (late 3rd century) but rather Constantine is credited with the modernisation of the Roman army which produced the more fixed border troops (Limitanei) vs. the so-called 'mobile' field army (Comitatenses).

Comitatenses are equipped liked the Limitanei, although their higher pay would mean in general better equipment. Both could be Germanic volunteers as well as Romans. Both were 'imperial legionaries', equipped with spear, shield, spatha.

Would the gear be that different? The Comitatenses were paid better but were charged for their food. The Limitanei were paid less but being located at fixed locations could raise their own craps and feed themself. It might just be that the too balanced each other out.

Adrian Goldsworthy believes that the two were equally capable in battle and the Limitanei were not border militia as has been suggested before.

[sonic]

"Comitatenses" as in the spatha-equipped Imperial legionary after the reforms of Diocletian (I think) in the 2nd century AD.
I had thought the word was used specifically to describe the Imperial legionary (beside the Limitanei) of the period. Or am I incorrect there?

I'd say not so much Diocletian (late 3rd century) but rather Constantine is credited with the modernisation of the Roman army which produced the more fixed border troops (Limitanei) vs. the so-called 'mobile' field army (Comitatenses).

Comitatenses are equipped liked the Limitanei, although their higher pay would mean in general better equipment. Both could be Germanic volunteers as well as Romans. Both were 'imperial legionaries', equipped with spear, shield, spatha.

Would the gear be that different? The Comitatenses were paid better but were charged for their food. The Limitanei were paid less but being located at fixed locations could raise their own craps and feed themself. It might just be that the too balanced each other out.

Adrian Goldsworthy believes that the two were equally capable in battle and the Limitanei were not border militia as has been suggested before.

The fact that the comitatenses were better paid was not the main influence upon their equipment, but the fact that they had higher status than the limitanei: both were supplied by the government. It was only at the end of the fifth century that the troops were ordered to buy their own equipment - although even here limits were likely to have been set.

I agree with Goldsworthy that the troops were probably about equal in battle, although much would depend on location within the empire (eg frontier or interior province) and the quality of the officers assigned to individual units. Weak or indifferent officers are likely to have neglected training, so leading to troops' battle-readiness being lowered.

In an attempt to answer the original question, there is a record - I think in the 'Life of Saint Severinus' (but I don't have it to hand) - which has a unit in the Balkans sending men to Italy to collect their pay, but off the top of my head I couldn't tell you the date. Further, I believe some units in Spain were still recorded as extant long after Roman control had gone. However, both of these references might be to limitanei. Unfortunately, most ancient sources aren't really that interested in noting these things!

Maybe others could fill in the gaps?

[Robert Vermaat]

Would the gear be that different? The Comitatenses were paid better but were charged for their food. The Limitanei were paid less but being located at fixed locations could raise their own craps and feed themself. It might just be that the too balanced each other out.

Did I say that? I did not. Troops on higher pay would however be able to buy better stuff. What I did not mention was that the comitatenses had first choice from the state warehouses, while the limitanei would have to accept what ended up at their forts. Supplies were often stolen and sold by corrupt officers.
As to comitatenses being charged for their food, I doubt that. they could easily command resources (read: force the population to pay) for thier protection. And limitanei also received food as part of their pay, so there's not much difference there.

Adrian Goldsworthy believes that the two were equally capable in battle and the Limitanei were not border militia as has been suggested before.

In theory, maybe. But if you have troops till food for most of the week and train an afternoon, you can hardly compare them to troops who are in the field for most of the year. Having said that, I do believe that the limitanei were capable of handling any local crisis, and act their worth in large battles.

[Timotheus]

Would the gear be that different? The Comitatenses were paid better but were charged for their food. The Limitanei were paid less but being located at fixed locations could raise their own craps and feed themself. It might just be that the too balanced each other out.

Did I say that? I did not. Troops on higher pay would however be able to buy better stuff. What I did not mention was that the comitatenses had first choice from the state warehouses, while the limitanei would have to accept what ended up at their forts. Supplies were often stolen and sold by corrupt officers.
As to comitatenses being charged for their food, I doubt that. they could easily command resources (read: force the population to pay) for thier protection. And limitanei also received food as part of their pay, so there's not much difference there.

Adrian Goldsworthy believes that the two were equally capable in battle and the Limitanei were not border militia as has been suggested before.

In theory, maybe. But if you have troops till food for most of the week and train an afternoon, you can hardly compare them to troops who are in the field for most of the year. Having said that, I do believe that the limitanei were capable of handling any local crisis, and act their worth in large battles.

I am sorry. I thought you did. You stated that better pay meant they could buy better equipment.

I thought it was standard procedure in the legion to be paid but then have certain items like the cost of feeding you deducted from your pay?


On the other hand troops sitting on the border potentially dealing with small raids that never make it into the Empire or that do but are stopped within a day or two might have much more experience than the field armies keep deeper in the Empire in reserve and only used when the situation got out of hand.

[Ioannes_Ahenobarbus]

As to the question of how long these troops remained, we must look to the seventh century. During the latter years of Phokas' reign, the Persians, Slavs, and Avars began whittling away at the Empire's periphery until the 'whittling' became more of a 'carving off of great chunks' (forgive the expression). Herakleios overthrew Phokas in 610, slowly reforming the army over a period of almost a decade - if the chronology can be trusted. In the early 620's he combined most of the field and remaining border troops (there is an issue here if the limitanei even existed by this point) into a single, rather large expeditionary force. Did the different classifications of troops operate as separate units/divisions/formations? I don't know. But after the last Persian War, Herakleios did attempt to recreate the Eastern frontiers as they were before him. He was not the reformer Ostrogorsky and others have made him out to be. Nevertheless, it is possible these soldiers - comitatenses - survived in an ad hoc collection formed as one (or more) of the regiments that constituted the themes.

[Robert Vermaat]

In an attempt to answer the original question, there is a record - I think in the 'Life of Saint Severinus' (but I don't have it to hand) - which has a unit in the Balkans sending men to Italy to collect their pay, but off the top of my head I couldn't tell you the date. Further, I believe some units in Spain were still recorded as extant long after Roman control had gone. However, both of these references might be to limitanei. Unfortunately, most ancient sources aren't really that interested in noting these things!

The Life of Severinus was written by Eugippius. Severin died in 482. Apparently the breakdown of the Danube border happened shortly before that. Odoacar then ordered the last inhabitants of Noricum Ripense to be resettled in southern Italy.

Procopius mentions units in Gaul that clearly descended from earlier frontier troops, but unfortunately he is not clear wheather the ancestors were Romans, Gallic militia or even Germanic federates.

[Robert Vermaat]

In the early 620's he combined most of the field and remaining border troops (there is an issue here if the limitanei even existed by this point) into a single, rather large expeditionary force. Did the different classifications of troops operate as separate units/divisions/formations? I don't know.

They do not seem to have in the earlier periods of their existence. Limitanei units could be taken into the field army without problems, although they remained of lower rank (operating under the title of pseudocomitatenses).

[Ioannes_Ahenobarbus]

Absolutely right. I mean to say that in this particular instance in the 620's it is not clear whether or not that is what happened. Wouldn't it be fantastic if the chroniclers and historians went into more detail concerning institutions and organization?

The world would be a better place for it! :lol:

[Agraes]

Here the exact passage of Procopius, De Bello Gothico, book V.
Translation here:
http://bulfinch.englishatheist.org/Procopius/Book5.htm


Now other Roman soldiers, also, had been stationed at the frontiers of Gaul to serve as guards. And these soldiers, having no means of returning to Rome, and at the same time being unwilling to yield to their enemy who were Arians, gave themselves, together with their military standards and the land which they had long been guarding for the Romans, to the Arborychi and Germans; and they handed down to their offspring all the customs of their fathers, which were thus preserved, and this people has held them in sufficient reverence to guard them even up to my time. For even at the present day they are clearly recognized as belonging to the legions to which they were assigned when they served in ancient times, and they always carry their own standards when they enter battle, and always follow the customs of their fathers. And they preserve the dress of the Romans in every particular, even as regards their shoes.

The Arborychi are the Armoricans, ie the Romano-Gallics leaving in the vast region between Seine and Loire, settled at this time by Britons. The Arians are the Wisigoths, the Germans are the Franks.
Léon Fleuriot in Les Origines de la Bretagne identifies those 'Roman soldiers' with Briton units. We know that the Britons played a very important role in Vth century Gaul, that they did fight the Wisigoths of Euric under Riothamus.
They remained very proud of their roman inheritage until very late, and in the late VIth century we know they cut their hair short in the roman fashion, and used tablets to free slaves in the roman way.

The Life of St Dalmas records a legio britannica in 533 near Orleans. Of course it could be simply an "army", but there is a possibility it was a real legion in the late roman fashion.

Léon region in Brittany was known in the early middle ages as pagus Legionensis, this is the place were they was the roman forts of Brest and Coz-Yaudet, part of the tractus armoricani. In a small castrum not far from here two golden coins have been found, one of Julius Nepos and the other from Zenon, possibly the pay of Roman soldiers in the last decades of the Vth century...

I won't say Procopius description only refers to Britons, but it is likely for me it does include them.

[sonic]

Here the exact passage of Procopius, De Bello Gothico, book V.
Translation here:
http://bulfinch.englishatheist.org/Procopius/Book5.htm


Now other Roman soldiers, also, had been stationed at the frontiers of Gaul to serve as guards. And these soldiers, having no means of returning to Rome, and at the same time being unwilling to yield to their enemy who were Arians, gave themselves, together with their military standards and the land which they had long been guarding for the Romans, to the Arborychi and Germans; and they handed down to their offspring all the customs of their fathers, which were thus preserved, and this people has held them in sufficient reverence to guard them even up to my time. For even at the present day they are clearly recognized as belonging to the legions to which they were assigned when they served in ancient times, and they always carry their own standards when they enter battle, and always follow the customs of their fathers. And they preserve the dress of the Romans in every particular, even as regards their shoes.

The Arborychi are the Armoricans, ie the Romano-Gallics leaving in the vast region between Seine and Loire, settled at this time by Britons. The Arians are the Wisigoths, the Germans are the Franks.
Léon Fleuriot in Les Origines de la Bretagne identifies those 'Roman soldiers' with Briton units. We know that the Britons played a very important role in Vth century Gaul, that they did fight the Wisigoths of Euric under Riothamus.
They remained very proud of their roman inheritage until very late, and in the late VIth century we know they cut their hair short in the roman fashion, and used tablets to free slaves in the roman way.

The Life of St Dalmas records a legio britannica in 533 near Orleans. Of course it could be simply an "army", but there is a possibility it was a real legion in the late roman fashion.

Léon region in Brittany was known in the early middle ages as pagus Legionensis, this is the place were they was the roman forts of Brest and Coz-Yaudet, part of the tractus armoricani. In a small castrum not far from here two golden coins have been found, one of Julius Nepos and the other from Zenon, possibly the pay of Roman soldiers in the last decades of the Vth century...

I won't say Procopius description only refers to Britons, but it is likely for me it does include them.

Good quote and explanation!! Have a laudes.

[Urselius]

From first principles you cannot have comitatenses, a term which derives from "comites" meaning "companions," without a Roman emperor for the soldiers to be companions of. Therfore, after Romulus Augustulus and Julius Nepos, there were no comitatenses as such in the West. The east is more difficult but the reorganisation of the army into the theme system (ca. 640-680) must spell the end of any formal comitatenses status as the Tagmata took over their function, both as the soldiers of central field army(ies) and companions in arms of emperors.

We know that the descendants of Roman provincials served in Frankish armies, late Visigothic armies etc. but this is a separate matter.