08-21-2011, 04:21 PM
Thanks for the feedback, Robert.
The list is provocative indeed and it is a shame that the numbers are not detailed also but I expect (as you suspect) that Fatih Onur is holding that back until the full paper is released later in the year.
He makes a number of claims which relate to the original sermo of Ananstasius - that the detail is in regard to the army as a whole (this is speculation) but also the legio palatinae in particular billeted in and around Perge (Onur makes a convincing claim for that, I think) - that it is a specific response to a grievance raised by the troops/grades referred to in the C list (unproven but convincing) - that the notitia itself and the numbers/annonae are drawn directly from the Praetorian Prefect's office and are at least accurate in relation only to the paper accounts as understood at 'head office' as it were.
We may then infer that Anastasius is attempting to correct abuses and restore levels of numbers and grades/annonae as oppossed to ratifying was is actually happening 'at ground level'. His record as an emperor in this regard is exemplary so we may infer that the levels/grades were at least accurate as to what the Roman Army should be at regardless of what was happening at the local level.
To be honest, the grades themselves remain somewhat obscure to me as I still have some difficulty separating rank from grade as my knowledge here is still provisional! Jerome as I understand it lists ranks of the cavalry not grades and Vegetius is reconstructing the archaic legion or rather filtering it through the contemporary one and so presenting a somewhat ananchrontisic list which is both of grades and ranks. Lydus I am not that familiar with at all and would appreciate a source reference I can track down!
And again thanks for your valuable input here. I appreciate it.
The list is provocative indeed and it is a shame that the numbers are not detailed also but I expect (as you suspect) that Fatih Onur is holding that back until the full paper is released later in the year.
He makes a number of claims which relate to the original sermo of Ananstasius - that the detail is in regard to the army as a whole (this is speculation) but also the legio palatinae in particular billeted in and around Perge (Onur makes a convincing claim for that, I think) - that it is a specific response to a grievance raised by the troops/grades referred to in the C list (unproven but convincing) - that the notitia itself and the numbers/annonae are drawn directly from the Praetorian Prefect's office and are at least accurate in relation only to the paper accounts as understood at 'head office' as it were.
We may then infer that Anastasius is attempting to correct abuses and restore levels of numbers and grades/annonae as oppossed to ratifying was is actually happening 'at ground level'. His record as an emperor in this regard is exemplary so we may infer that the levels/grades were at least accurate as to what the Roman Army should be at regardless of what was happening at the local level.
To be honest, the grades themselves remain somewhat obscure to me as I still have some difficulty separating rank from grade as my knowledge here is still provisional! Jerome as I understand it lists ranks of the cavalry not grades and Vegetius is reconstructing the archaic legion or rather filtering it through the contemporary one and so presenting a somewhat ananchrontisic list which is both of grades and ranks. Lydus I am not that familiar with at all and would appreciate a source reference I can track down!
And again thanks for your valuable input here. I appreciate it.
Francis Hagan
The Barcarii
The Barcarii
