Late Roman Army Grade/Rank List under Anastasius

[Robert Vermaat]

'Whilst his grade is that of a Flaviales, his rank is that of a Biarchus.'
Not sure - biarchus, like centenarius and ducenarius, seems to be a rank used by guard units and cavalry (scholae and auxilia palatina), not legions. We no more need to start installing biarchi here than we need to start looking for Vegetius's decani!

Yes, you are right about the biarchus. I sort of forget this rank is specific (as far as we know) to the scholae and palatina. I used it some time ago as a caput stand-in and for some reason find it hard to unlearn it. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

I have to get back to this one.

Firstly, how are we sure that a biarchus is limited to scholae and palatinae? Are we saying that Hieronimus' famous list of cavalry ranks was that of a scholae or palatina unit and not of a standard regiment?
How does that fit with one Iovianus, biarchus draconarius (at the same time) of the late 4th c. Octavodalmatae (a vexillationes comitatenses unit)?

Plus this (undated? one of a biarchus decanus from a 'numerus scutatorum':
AE 1951, 30 = AE 1954, 231
Provinz: Pontus et Bithynia Ort: Konuralp / Prusias ad Hypium
D(is) M(anibus) adgredere viator /
obiter sta(n)s et repausa(n)s perlege titulum /
cuius fata et manes vitam peregerunt in /
civitatem Prusiada Val(erius) Titianus bb(iarchus?) decanus /
num(eri) scut(ariorum) natione Dalmata vixit annos XXXXV /
militavit annos XXII fecit memoria(m) Ursus /
ex numero ipso pro fraternitate

A shortlist, some palatini, some not:
P. Würtz 17 – equites clibanarii
BGU 316 – cataphractarii
ILS 2805 – VIII Dalmatae
ILS 2799 – Batavi seniores
ILS 2804 – Bracchiati
CIL v. 6784 – Leones seniores
AE 1946, 42 - Scutarii

That's one of the reasons I still hold with the theory that a biarchus was a caput contubernii (Maurikios' dekarch).

Secondly, I'm still not sure that the centenarius commanded a century. The only examples that we have (procurator centenarius, centenarius portus) seem to point at salary, not command over an amount of something.

---

which military standard was applied or used by the cavalry at the time of the Strategicon (and of course more early, however always focusing the end of the 5th until the early 7th century)?
What was the rank or title called for the officer of a cavalry unit at the end of the 5th and 6th century?

My answer would be the tribunus  as the commanding officer of a new-style unit, which could be a regiment of auxilia palatina or a numerus or anything in between.
The second in command and/or replacement would be the vicarius as the highest non-commissioned officer who could assume command in absence of a tribunus. He was not a strict rank but an ‘acting-tribune’, sometimes even from another unit. The formulaic coupling ‘vicarius vel tribunus’ from a number of sources signified the title of ‘commanding officer’ or ‘officer in charge’ regardless of his actual rank. When an infantry regiment was split into two equal parts, the tribunus commanded the first and the vicarius the second.

The primicerius was the senior NCO (both in old-style as well in new-style units) whose name came first on the regimental muster-roll (matrix).

Maurikios mentioned the ilarch (or the ‘senior hekatontarch’) for the case of a cavalry regiment.

Vegetius mentioned a tribunis minor, which might signify a change in promotion procedured, or he might have had the vicarius in mind.

---

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.

Very interesting! So you're saying that units were simply renamed instead of new units raised with such new designations? How do you explain some 'old' unit names still surviving throughout the 6th c.?

Thanks for your contributions so far!