06-29-2017, 05:46 AM
I am still perturbed by the Veredarii.
If we look at the surviving grade lists from this and later periods (which Robert handily collated in a pdf some posts back), we can see some overlap and similarities between Vegetius, the Anastasian Edict here, and that of Johannes Lydus somewhat later. This presents a neat development from both a historical perspective and also a literary one. Vegetius writes what might be called a diachronic tract in that it collates and attempts to synchronise material from a long period of Roman military history. The result is that he establishes both a 'model' Roman legion predicated on historical sources mapped onto the current one. Hence the confusion and contradiction in some of his statements. This legion both exists and has never existed, as it were. The Anastasian Edict is a synchronic text in its purest form; it stands to illustrate exactly what this type of legion shall muster in terms of its grades and the payment relations between them at that moment in history. It also - and this is crucial - stood as a monument to confirm that all legions of this type should hereafter follow this list. If we think of history as oscillating between the synchronic and diachronic modes this could not be a better example of the former. Finally, Lydus is consciously writing about the history of Roman institutions from an agenda focused around resurrecting the grandeur of the Praetorian Praefecture. As a result, he too is writing diachronically.
The Vegetian list occupies the later 4th century. The Anastasian one can be dated to within the last decade of the 5th century. Lydus wrote about 550 AD. As a result, all three lists preserve valuable indications of what was, is, and should be, if read cautiously.
Neither the Vegetian list nor the Lydian one has any mention of Veredarii. I believe Jerome's list also contains no mention of such a grade. Isn't that odd given the ranking of this grade in the list. The 275 veredarii fall directly after the 20 Optiones and above the 10 Imaginiferi.
This is both maddening to me but also perhaps a clue but a clue to what?
So, first things first:
The fact that the inscription refers to the legions indicates a universal or prescriptive legislation which should apply across all units belonging to this grade or type of legion while acknowledging that the inscription itself is in response to this legion's specific complaint. Given the time-frame proposed by Onur and the recent Isaurian incursions, it might be productive to look instead not at the numbers/grades as is but to the cause instead in order to get a grasp or handle on what exactly this 'legion' is.
Why this legion and why Perge? This legion - or rather an individual on its behalf, if I follow Onur reasoning here - raised a complaint and Anastasius used this as an opportunity to not only address this specific complaint but also to regulate across the legions of this grade. The edict erected at Perge was both legion-specific and also designed to be universal. Or at least that was the intent. So the question becomes what legion or individual had cause to break silence, as it were? What was happening that allowed this event to arise in the first place such that Anastasius could use it as part of his broader - and very successful - reforms of the Roman Army? Reforms that were so successful that it is generally held that that the Roman Army which a few years later defended the empire against Sassanian incursions was both professional and ably led. So much so, if I remember correctly, that recruiting rose in this period due to the attractiveness of serving under arms. In other words, what is the historical context here?
My instinct is that this might be a legionary numerus recently raised from a lower grade to a higher one and which, as a result, has been suffering abuse on a level not previously experienced. This vertical shift in grade produced a resentment which then percolated through over some years until it boiled over into the formal complaint, to use a clumsy metaphor. Other field army or palatine legions would be acculturated to the abuse and merely endure it. This unit didn't. Specific events brought its ranks out into the open and one or more individuals raised a complaint to the Augustus himself. The latter saw this as an opportunity to push through the reforms already developing after the Isaurian movement had been crushed. One complimented the other and the result was the Edict.
But it is important to understand that this would have taken time. An abuse or series of abuses predicated on holding back promotion or buying in/fast-tracking promotion must have built up over many years before its effect could result in such resentment, I think. This was not a legion which was promoted and then experienced a catastrophic collapse in morale. These things were incremental - perhaps even generational. So we would need to be looking for a legion which had been raised a grade and which then experienced a series of abuses over time which it had not previously been subjected to - or if it had, it had not experienced them in the manner it was now being subjected to.
Bear with me here.
If this conjecture may bear fruit, we should be looking for a legion raised from a distinctly lower grade to a significantly higher one. I state this because the level of abuse attracted the worst in the Late Roman Army and if that is the case then we would be looking perhaps at a limitanei unit being promoted up into the ranks of the field army or indeed the palatine comitatus itself.
So how does this relate to the issue of the Veredarii, I wonder?
Well, this is where I really strike out into speculation - and what better forum to do this in? What kind of legion would include within its ranks such a strong light ‘hunting’ cavalry component? These are Veredarii, after all, not contus or cataphract cavalry. Their descriptor points to skirmishing, hunting, harassing equites who would prefer the light missiles weapons such as javelins and bows. They are unarmoured, perhaps only carrying a scutum for protection - or why else be graded as Veredarii? These equites have not been hived off (yet) into discreet cavalry troops and stationed away from their parent legion and - more to the point - the slabs indicate that it is an established order that this type of legion should have a requisite number of light cavalry attached as part of its battle-order. Hence this legion can’t be one of the newer ones, I suspect.
So we are looking for two specific components here: A) a move (up presumably) from one legion grade to another and after a period of time a heavy catalogue of abuse which this legion had not previously been used to and B) a legion or unit which had traditionally included light cavalry as part of its make-up.
Interestingly enough, there are a number of new legions which were raised in the 4th century and garrisoned the Pontic and Armenian zones before transferring further afield - with some also being promoted from the limitanei grade up into that of the pseudo-comitatenses grade. These were the two Armenian legions eventually recorded in the ND under the Magister Militum per Orientum as the first two legions of pseudo-comitatenses. I mention these legions specifically because Armenia historically always had a special relationship with horse culture and that also there are strong indications during the reign of Valens that either an Armenian or a Iberian prince attached himself to the comitatus of the emperor while he was campaigning against the Goths in near the Danube and as a result this prince and his retinue were formally enrolled as a new schola unit - the Scola Scutariorum Sagittariorum. This again reinforces the strong tradition in Armenian/Iberian culture of light horse/archery. Libanius in his Oration 8 singles out these cavalry for praise in front of Valens, for example.
While I am speculating here, it is interesting that we might see in this legion a specific history which runs as follows: two Armenian legions are created and stationed in the frontier zones and include within their ranks a strong component of ‘Veredarii’ as a specific type. These legions later are involved in the march down the Euphrates with Julian but are still under the command of the old Dux Mesopotamia as limitanei legions. At some point subsequent to that disaster, the legions are upgraded into the field army list of the Magister Militum per Orientum as pseudo-comitatenses legions. As that list stands now, both Armenian legions occupy the top 2 places on the list of this grade under the Magister.
If the collation of the list is generally dated to circa 393 AD, then at some point prior to that these Armenian legions were upgraded into the field army under the Magister Militum per Orientum and relocated away from the now-lost trans-Tigritene provinces.
Is it possible one of these legions is the legion in question and the presence of the Edict was to regulate the order of the pseudo-comitatenses legions who had remained for a long period of time within the field army but which still retained an older limitanei ranking? This confusion of status would have to have been ratified at some point once it was understood that the legion was not going to return to its older frontier status. It was both a field army legion with all the perks which that entailed but still stood under the shadow of its older status. Hence, eventually, circa 490 AD, after mounting abuse and ambivalence the formal complaint.
The Anastasian Edict refers specifically to the status of all pseudo-comitatenses legions which had been withdrawn from the frontier zones and were now billeted under the remit of the Magisters. As such, these legions - and the Armenian ones in particular - brought with them a different legion structure which included a strong component of light cavalry.
After time, these pseudo-comitatenses were absorbed into the main field army and eventually lost that ‘inbetween’ status altogether. This might be why Lydus never refers to Veredarii and it would explain also why Vegetius never refers to them as he is describing a main line infantry legion.
Anyway, that’s the result of 2 morning mugs of coffee . . . Pure speculation and an over-eager typing reflex . . .
If we look at the surviving grade lists from this and later periods (which Robert handily collated in a pdf some posts back), we can see some overlap and similarities between Vegetius, the Anastasian Edict here, and that of Johannes Lydus somewhat later. This presents a neat development from both a historical perspective and also a literary one. Vegetius writes what might be called a diachronic tract in that it collates and attempts to synchronise material from a long period of Roman military history. The result is that he establishes both a 'model' Roman legion predicated on historical sources mapped onto the current one. Hence the confusion and contradiction in some of his statements. This legion both exists and has never existed, as it were. The Anastasian Edict is a synchronic text in its purest form; it stands to illustrate exactly what this type of legion shall muster in terms of its grades and the payment relations between them at that moment in history. It also - and this is crucial - stood as a monument to confirm that all legions of this type should hereafter follow this list. If we think of history as oscillating between the synchronic and diachronic modes this could not be a better example of the former. Finally, Lydus is consciously writing about the history of Roman institutions from an agenda focused around resurrecting the grandeur of the Praetorian Praefecture. As a result, he too is writing diachronically.
The Vegetian list occupies the later 4th century. The Anastasian one can be dated to within the last decade of the 5th century. Lydus wrote about 550 AD. As a result, all three lists preserve valuable indications of what was, is, and should be, if read cautiously.
Neither the Vegetian list nor the Lydian one has any mention of Veredarii. I believe Jerome's list also contains no mention of such a grade. Isn't that odd given the ranking of this grade in the list. The 275 veredarii fall directly after the 20 Optiones and above the 10 Imaginiferi.
This is both maddening to me but also perhaps a clue but a clue to what?
So, first things first:
The fact that the inscription refers to the legions indicates a universal or prescriptive legislation which should apply across all units belonging to this grade or type of legion while acknowledging that the inscription itself is in response to this legion's specific complaint. Given the time-frame proposed by Onur and the recent Isaurian incursions, it might be productive to look instead not at the numbers/grades as is but to the cause instead in order to get a grasp or handle on what exactly this 'legion' is.
Why this legion and why Perge? This legion - or rather an individual on its behalf, if I follow Onur reasoning here - raised a complaint and Anastasius used this as an opportunity to not only address this specific complaint but also to regulate across the legions of this grade. The edict erected at Perge was both legion-specific and also designed to be universal. Or at least that was the intent. So the question becomes what legion or individual had cause to break silence, as it were? What was happening that allowed this event to arise in the first place such that Anastasius could use it as part of his broader - and very successful - reforms of the Roman Army? Reforms that were so successful that it is generally held that that the Roman Army which a few years later defended the empire against Sassanian incursions was both professional and ably led. So much so, if I remember correctly, that recruiting rose in this period due to the attractiveness of serving under arms. In other words, what is the historical context here?
My instinct is that this might be a legionary numerus recently raised from a lower grade to a higher one and which, as a result, has been suffering abuse on a level not previously experienced. This vertical shift in grade produced a resentment which then percolated through over some years until it boiled over into the formal complaint, to use a clumsy metaphor. Other field army or palatine legions would be acculturated to the abuse and merely endure it. This unit didn't. Specific events brought its ranks out into the open and one or more individuals raised a complaint to the Augustus himself. The latter saw this as an opportunity to push through the reforms already developing after the Isaurian movement had been crushed. One complimented the other and the result was the Edict.
But it is important to understand that this would have taken time. An abuse or series of abuses predicated on holding back promotion or buying in/fast-tracking promotion must have built up over many years before its effect could result in such resentment, I think. This was not a legion which was promoted and then experienced a catastrophic collapse in morale. These things were incremental - perhaps even generational. So we would need to be looking for a legion which had been raised a grade and which then experienced a series of abuses over time which it had not previously been subjected to - or if it had, it had not experienced them in the manner it was now being subjected to.
Bear with me here.
If this conjecture may bear fruit, we should be looking for a legion raised from a distinctly lower grade to a significantly higher one. I state this because the level of abuse attracted the worst in the Late Roman Army and if that is the case then we would be looking perhaps at a limitanei unit being promoted up into the ranks of the field army or indeed the palatine comitatus itself.
So how does this relate to the issue of the Veredarii, I wonder?
Well, this is where I really strike out into speculation - and what better forum to do this in? What kind of legion would include within its ranks such a strong light ‘hunting’ cavalry component? These are Veredarii, after all, not contus or cataphract cavalry. Their descriptor points to skirmishing, hunting, harassing equites who would prefer the light missiles weapons such as javelins and bows. They are unarmoured, perhaps only carrying a scutum for protection - or why else be graded as Veredarii? These equites have not been hived off (yet) into discreet cavalry troops and stationed away from their parent legion and - more to the point - the slabs indicate that it is an established order that this type of legion should have a requisite number of light cavalry attached as part of its battle-order. Hence this legion can’t be one of the newer ones, I suspect.
So we are looking for two specific components here: A) a move (up presumably) from one legion grade to another and after a period of time a heavy catalogue of abuse which this legion had not previously been used to and B) a legion or unit which had traditionally included light cavalry as part of its make-up.
Interestingly enough, there are a number of new legions which were raised in the 4th century and garrisoned the Pontic and Armenian zones before transferring further afield - with some also being promoted from the limitanei grade up into that of the pseudo-comitatenses grade. These were the two Armenian legions eventually recorded in the ND under the Magister Militum per Orientum as the first two legions of pseudo-comitatenses. I mention these legions specifically because Armenia historically always had a special relationship with horse culture and that also there are strong indications during the reign of Valens that either an Armenian or a Iberian prince attached himself to the comitatus of the emperor while he was campaigning against the Goths in near the Danube and as a result this prince and his retinue were formally enrolled as a new schola unit - the Scola Scutariorum Sagittariorum. This again reinforces the strong tradition in Armenian/Iberian culture of light horse/archery. Libanius in his Oration 8 singles out these cavalry for praise in front of Valens, for example.
While I am speculating here, it is interesting that we might see in this legion a specific history which runs as follows: two Armenian legions are created and stationed in the frontier zones and include within their ranks a strong component of ‘Veredarii’ as a specific type. These legions later are involved in the march down the Euphrates with Julian but are still under the command of the old Dux Mesopotamia as limitanei legions. At some point subsequent to that disaster, the legions are upgraded into the field army list of the Magister Militum per Orientum as pseudo-comitatenses legions. As that list stands now, both Armenian legions occupy the top 2 places on the list of this grade under the Magister.
If the collation of the list is generally dated to circa 393 AD, then at some point prior to that these Armenian legions were upgraded into the field army under the Magister Militum per Orientum and relocated away from the now-lost trans-Tigritene provinces.
Is it possible one of these legions is the legion in question and the presence of the Edict was to regulate the order of the pseudo-comitatenses legions who had remained for a long period of time within the field army but which still retained an older limitanei ranking? This confusion of status would have to have been ratified at some point once it was understood that the legion was not going to return to its older frontier status. It was both a field army legion with all the perks which that entailed but still stood under the shadow of its older status. Hence, eventually, circa 490 AD, after mounting abuse and ambivalence the formal complaint.
The Anastasian Edict refers specifically to the status of all pseudo-comitatenses legions which had been withdrawn from the frontier zones and were now billeted under the remit of the Magisters. As such, these legions - and the Armenian ones in particular - brought with them a different legion structure which included a strong component of light cavalry.
After time, these pseudo-comitatenses were absorbed into the main field army and eventually lost that ‘inbetween’ status altogether. This might be why Lydus never refers to Veredarii and it would explain also why Vegetius never refers to them as he is describing a main line infantry legion.
Anyway, that’s the result of 2 morning mugs of coffee . . . Pure speculation and an over-eager typing reflex . . .
Francis Hagan
The Barcarii
The Barcarii
