08-19-2016, 12:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-19-2016, 12:35 PM by Marcel Frederik Schwarze.)
We have many implication that units were transferred via the "gate" of the institution "pseudo-comitatenses". There are strong indications for a number of units which formerly belonged to the frontier army as a classical auxilia. Then they were transferred to the pseudo-comitatenses and in some few cases they were even auxilia palatinae later on.
All units of pseudo comitatenses were most likely - at least officially - organized as legion.
Cod. Theod. VII 1, 18 [...]
[IDEM] AA. STILICHONI MAG(ISTRO) MIL(ITUM). Contra publicam utilitatem nolumus a numeris ad alios numeros milites nos(t)ros transferri. Sciant igitur comites vel duces, quibus regendae militiae cura commissa est, non solum de comitatensibus ac palatinis numeris ad alios numeros militem transferri non licere, sed ne de ipsis quidem pseudocomitatensibus legionibus seu de ripariensibus castricianis ceterisque cuiquam eorum transferendi militem copiam adtributam, quia honoris augmentum non ambitione, sed labore ad unumquemque convenit devenire. Quod si qui contra fecerint, per singulos milites singulas auri libras a se noverint exigendas. DAT. XIIII KAL. APRIL. MED(IOLANO) STILICHONE ET AURELIANO CONSS. [...]
We know however, that a good proportion of pseudo comitatenses in the ND looking a bit auxilarian. And that such a transfer (see above) will trigger a certain internal reorganisation is likely - although not proven.
However, one thing should be clear here. With the slabs of Perge we have no template, which is applicable to all or many other units.
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.
Interesting that a huge group of soldiers are named augustalis and flaviales. Current doctrine is, that those titles of honour were given individually to non-commissioned officers. That such a big group has gained that title permanently is at least noteworthy and most likely part of the unit's history. The title itself is indeed many times evidenced in the 6th and 7th centuries.
just taking 2 examples:
p.muench 1 13 for a legion in 594AD: αὐγουστάλ̣ι(ος) ἀριθμοῦ Συήνης
BGU 2 369 for pseudo-comitatenses in 530AD: φλαουϊαλίῳ ἀριθμοῦ [τῶν καθοσιωμ(ένων) Τραν]στιγριτανῶν
a word concerning the numerus:
There are very technical sources in the 6th century, esp. on the military Papyrology of egypt which still show some differences between some troop-types (e.g. ιλε, λεγεον and some others). But we see that this designations in the course of the 6th century completely blurred - until they were almost unrecognizable at the beginning of the 7th century. At the end of this periode the romans started to designate units by numbers only (the 2nd bandum; the 15th bandum of illyriciani ect), as confirmed later by Nikephoros II. Phokas and Nikephoros Ouranos. They were simply counted up.
e.g. chla.29.877 […] Constantinus v(ir) d(evotus), mil(es) bandi secundi. […]; also Anast. Pers. 3, 15, 1-8 for the 15th bandon;
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.
Under other circumstances - just by finding slab c - we could also believe that this unit is a kind of a new numerus. However, slab b shows clearly that this unit is a legion.
All units of pseudo comitatenses were most likely - at least officially - organized as legion.
Cod. Theod. VII 1, 18 [...]
[IDEM] AA. STILICHONI MAG(ISTRO) MIL(ITUM). Contra publicam utilitatem nolumus a numeris ad alios numeros milites nos(t)ros transferri. Sciant igitur comites vel duces, quibus regendae militiae cura commissa est, non solum de comitatensibus ac palatinis numeris ad alios numeros militem transferri non licere, sed ne de ipsis quidem pseudocomitatensibus legionibus seu de ripariensibus castricianis ceterisque cuiquam eorum transferendi militem copiam adtributam, quia honoris augmentum non ambitione, sed labore ad unumquemque convenit devenire. Quod si qui contra fecerint, per singulos milites singulas auri libras a se noverint exigendas. DAT. XIIII KAL. APRIL. MED(IOLANO) STILICHONE ET AURELIANO CONSS. [...]
We know however, that a good proportion of pseudo comitatenses in the ND looking a bit auxilarian. And that such a transfer (see above) will trigger a certain internal reorganisation is likely - although not proven.
However, one thing should be clear here. With the slabs of Perge we have no template, which is applicable to all or many other units.
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.
Interesting that a huge group of soldiers are named augustalis and flaviales. Current doctrine is, that those titles of honour were given individually to non-commissioned officers. That such a big group has gained that title permanently is at least noteworthy and most likely part of the unit's history. The title itself is indeed many times evidenced in the 6th and 7th centuries.
just taking 2 examples:
p.muench 1 13 for a legion in 594AD: αὐγουστάλ̣ι(ος) ἀριθμοῦ Συήνης
BGU 2 369 for pseudo-comitatenses in 530AD: φλαουϊαλίῳ ἀριθμοῦ [τῶν καθοσιωμ(ένων) Τραν]στιγριτανῶν
a word concerning the numerus:
There are very technical sources in the 6th century, esp. on the military Papyrology of egypt which still show some differences between some troop-types (e.g. ιλε, λεγεον and some others). But we see that this designations in the course of the 6th century completely blurred - until they were almost unrecognizable at the beginning of the 7th century. At the end of this periode the romans started to designate units by numbers only (the 2nd bandum; the 15th bandum of illyriciani ect), as confirmed later by Nikephoros II. Phokas and Nikephoros Ouranos. They were simply counted up.
e.g. chla.29.877 […] Constantinus v(ir) d(evotus), mil(es) bandi secundi. […]; also Anast. Pers. 3, 15, 1-8 for the 15th bandon;
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.
Under other circumstances - just by finding slab c - we could also believe that this unit is a kind of a new numerus. However, slab b shows clearly that this unit is a legion.
