08-19-2016, 04:25 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-19-2016, 09:46 PM by Marcel Frederik Schwarze.)
Hello Nathan,
How many centuriae (infantry) are in a cohors miliaria equitata? What about the strength of the cavalry (compare with P.Dura 82)
This kind of numbers game is exciting, but probably not helpful at the moment.
We should only mark out the framework first before we come to the details. What kind of unit is it? Who are the leaders? Who is leading the sub-units? Is it helpful to learn a bit about the job of the optio in the late 5th and 6th century? And why we have just 10 of them (and not 20)? Is it possible that a group of cavalry was "bonded" administratively to a centuria? What about military instructors of the 6th century? Is it possible that some musicians were just office assitant in the 6th century? What about an overall standard for the entire unit? What about infantry standards and its usage in the very late antiquity?
In slab B there is also described that the μαγιστέρων τῶν δρακωναρίων is responsible for all draconarii - the ὀπτίονας are superviced by the πρινκιπίων - the κανπιδούκτορος is responsible for ἀρματούρους, κορνίκας, τούβικας, βουκινάτοραςto and to carry out the σχολῶν.
____________________________________________________
btw: CIL, V 8745 is dated to the 5th century, not 500AD.
Ernst Diehl, Lateinische christliche Inschriften mit einem Anhang jüdischer Inschriften, 1908, p.34 n. 169; arguments for a date more early (381-400AD) see Maria Cristina La Rocca, Le epigrafi funerarie d’ammonimento di Salona e Concordia Sagittaria, 2014/15, p.136; Damiana Baldassarra, Schedae numerus: EDR097738, 400AD-450AD.
CIL V 8740, suggested between 350-450AD
La Rocca, Le epigrafi funerarie, p. 43
Hello Robert,
Veg II 7 […] Erant decani, denis militibus praepositi, qui nunc caput contubernii uocantur […]; and II 13 […] Rursus ipsae centuriae in contubernia diuisae sunt, ut decem militibus sub uno papilione degentibus unus quasi praeesset decanus, qui caput contubernii nominatur […].
In the Strategicon the tent -or fileleader is known under the name λοχαγους (leader of a λόγος) and δεκαρχους (leader of 10).
The term Decanus is just metonymically, since the same source reports some sentences later that:
a) The file called "primi" stays with the λοχαγους. [8 men]
b) The soldiers of the "secundi" stood under the leadership to the δεκαρχους. [also 8 men]
[Strat12B]
They can fight together and be mingled into one large file, 16 deep. But even then, they were always 2 files with 8 men.
The file is closed by the Uragus (οὐραγόν) - who takes care that the file is strong, stays in formation and that nobody is running away. In the worst case, when the enemy comes from behind, the file-closer is able to take the leadership of the entire file. Could this be our circitor? Is this represented on slab C as well?
Another interesting Papyri (P.Abinn.42), 326-375AD is documentating an order, most likely even a warning, from the ducenarius Romanus to his contubernalis Geladius (Decanus or caput contubernii?)in the name of ἀδελφῷ πριμικῆρι τῆς οὐιξιλλατίωνος. I personally would expect a kind of nco between a ducenarius (centurion/ordinarius) and a small regular soldier. Therefore the κοντουβερνάλιον is most likely the file-leader.
concerning the leadership of cavalry:
a centenarius for cavalry:
stud.pal.20.139, 531AD […] κεντηναρίῳ ἀριθμοῦ τῶν γενναι[ο]τάτων λεόνων [κλιβαναρίων […]
Interesting as well is that in slabB 55 the ordinarii are called πρινκιπίων (principes).
And of course, many units were deployed after the Strategicon was written. But I fear that the majority was just named by numbers - later in combination with their "theme", e.g. the 2nd bandon of anatolikon etc. That some units like Theodosiaci or the Victores are mentioned late in history is true, however there is of course no proof that they have anything to do with its ancient namesake (even if I like the idea). But the part about east-roman theme-units and ancient surviving elements of the famous tagmata is another story and should not be discussed here, otherwise the overview is gone quickly.
(08-19-2016, 12:57 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: I'm not sure - the law you quote refers specifically to individual soldiers (singulos milites) being transferred, not entire units;my source (cod.theod. VII 1,18) is suggesting indirectly much more than that. It shows also the technical title of pseudo comitatenses. Obviously they were classified as "legion". This is important when we agree - or at least assume - that the old (!) cohors, milites or an ancient numerus were transferred from the border to the mobile army in the same way as it happened to legions.
(08-19-2016, 12:57 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: True. Although they could have come from the 'old style auxiliary' cohortes still based on the frontiers, rather than being 'remodelled' as new-style auxilia, perhaps?what I mean when I speak about a classical auxillary is always a cohors. All empirical data that I have collected and noted, are showing a military unit which has little to do with a classical legion. But of course, I can be wrong.
How many centuriae (infantry) are in a cohors miliaria equitata? What about the strength of the cavalry (compare with P.Dura 82)
(08-19-2016, 12:57 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: Ah! So you're suggesting that the vexillarii were cavalry standard bearers? That would make sense, although it still leaves us short of cavalry commanders. But there are only 10 of them, and the number of veredarii (if they are indeed cavalry) does not divide equally between them...We do not know if the tribuni have had some kind of a small guard of horsemen - in this case we could reduce the number for our cavalry groups. We don't know if "here and there" a musician accompanied one of our "turma" and who else stood side by side with them. All this information would change the numbers once more. Furthermore we don't know if one or two of the 5 groups of flaviales and/or augustales belong to the cavalry as well.
This kind of numbers game is exciting, but probably not helpful at the moment.
We should only mark out the framework first before we come to the details. What kind of unit is it? Who are the leaders? Who is leading the sub-units? Is it helpful to learn a bit about the job of the optio in the late 5th and 6th century? And why we have just 10 of them (and not 20)? Is it possible that a group of cavalry was "bonded" administratively to a centuria? What about military instructors of the 6th century? Is it possible that some musicians were just office assitant in the 6th century? What about an overall standard for the entire unit? What about infantry standards and its usage in the very late antiquity?
In slab B there is also described that the μαγιστέρων τῶν δρακωναρίων is responsible for all draconarii - the ὀπτίονας are superviced by the πρινκιπίων - the κανπιδούκτορος is responsible for ἀρματούρους, κορνίκας, τούβικας, βουκινάτοραςto and to carry out the σχολῶν.
____________________________________________________
btw: CIL, V 8745 is dated to the 5th century, not 500AD.
Ernst Diehl, Lateinische christliche Inschriften mit einem Anhang jüdischer Inschriften, 1908, p.34 n. 169; arguments for a date more early (381-400AD) see Maria Cristina La Rocca, Le epigrafi funerarie d’ammonimento di Salona e Concordia Sagittaria, 2014/15, p.136; Damiana Baldassarra, Schedae numerus: EDR097738, 400AD-450AD.
CIL V 8740, suggested between 350-450AD
La Rocca, Le epigrafi funerarie, p. 43
Hello Robert,
(08-19-2016, 01:18 PM)Robert Vermaat Wrote: That's one of the reasons I still hold with the theory that a biarchus was a caput contubernii (Maurikios' dekarch).yes, most likely.
Veg II 7 […] Erant decani, denis militibus praepositi, qui nunc caput contubernii uocantur […]; and II 13 […] Rursus ipsae centuriae in contubernia diuisae sunt, ut decem militibus sub uno papilione degentibus unus quasi praeesset decanus, qui caput contubernii nominatur […].
In the Strategicon the tent -or fileleader is known under the name λοχαγους (leader of a λόγος) and δεκαρχους (leader of 10).
The term Decanus is just metonymically, since the same source reports some sentences later that:
a) The file called "primi" stays with the λοχαγους. [8 men]
b) The soldiers of the "secundi" stood under the leadership to the δεκαρχους. [also 8 men]
[Strat12B]
They can fight together and be mingled into one large file, 16 deep. But even then, they were always 2 files with 8 men.
The file is closed by the Uragus (οὐραγόν) - who takes care that the file is strong, stays in formation and that nobody is running away. In the worst case, when the enemy comes from behind, the file-closer is able to take the leadership of the entire file. Could this be our circitor? Is this represented on slab C as well?
Another interesting Papyri (P.Abinn.42), 326-375AD is documentating an order, most likely even a warning, from the ducenarius Romanus to his contubernalis Geladius (Decanus or caput contubernii?)in the name of ἀδελφῷ πριμικῆρι τῆς οὐιξιλλατίωνος. I personally would expect a kind of nco between a ducenarius (centurion/ordinarius) and a small regular soldier. Therefore the κοντουβερνάλιον is most likely the file-leader.
concerning the leadership of cavalry:
(08-19-2016, 01:18 PM)Robert Vermaat Wrote: Maurikios mentioned the ilarch (or the ‘senior hekatontarch’) for the case of a cavalry regiment.[/font][/size]Your upper statement could be the next step to evaluate the leadership of our small - let's call it turmae (10each) - even if it wasn't. Or was it?
a centenarius for cavalry:
stud.pal.20.139, 531AD […] κεντηναρίῳ ἀριθμοῦ τῶν γενναι[ο]τάτων λεόνων [κλιβαναρίων […]
Interesting as well is that in slabB 55 the ordinarii are called πρινκιπίων (principes).
(08-19-2016, 01:18 PM)Robert Vermaat Wrote: 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.?Yes, some units were evidently renamed, esp. in byzantine italy - on the other hand I know very well that other units kept their name for at least another 150 years. But that's not the most important part of my statement. With my analogy I just want show that traditional names disappered more and more.
And of course, many units were deployed after the Strategicon was written. But I fear that the majority was just named by numbers - later in combination with their "theme", e.g. the 2nd bandon of anatolikon etc. That some units like Theodosiaci or the Victores are mentioned late in history is true, however there is of course no proof that they have anything to do with its ancient namesake (even if I like the idea). But the part about east-roman theme-units and ancient surviving elements of the famous tagmata is another story and should not be discussed here, otherwise the overview is gone quickly.
