Zodiac and Late Roman Army Organisation

[nikgaukroger]

I think Robert has hit the nail on the head in respect to this. The civil war with Magnentius seems to have pulled most of the army from Gaul, hence the need for serious military action led by a "royal" figure in the end to re-establish the frontiers - indeed the campaign that ended with Julian's victory over the Alamanni involved multiple armies and Constantius reasonably close at hand.

[nikgaukroger]

The Western Notitia was believed to be written by Ioannes (I believe the same one that usurped in 423 with Aetius' support) in the Early 420s.

Can't recall ever seeing it attributed so before - any reference I could follow up?

[Robert Vermaat]

The Western Notitia was believed to be written by Ioannes (I believe the same one that usurped in 423 with Aetius' support) in the Early 420s.

Can't recall ever seeing it attributed so before - any reference I could follow up?

Me neither. The agreement is that the basic document was penned down c. 394, and that while the text of the Eastern part remained unchanged, additions were made to the document describing the Western part, until c. 420 (although that remains unsure). That 'Ioannes wrote' the western Notitia cannot be right, as they belong to the same document. Who exactly made the additions (which department) also remains unclear - we're not even sure why it was written in the first place!

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The Western Notitia was believed to be written by Ioannes (I believe the same one that usurped in 423 with Aetius' support) in the Early 420s.

Can't recall ever seeing it attributed so before - any reference I could follow up?

Me neither. The agreement is that the basic document was penned down c. 394, and that while the text of the Eastern part remained unchanged, additions were made to the document describing the Western part, until c. 420 (although that remains unsure). That 'Ioannes wrote' the western Notitia cannot be right, as they belong to the same document. Who exactly made the additions (which department) also remains unclear - we're not even sure why it was written in the first place!

I stand corrected

[nikgaukroger]

Nik wrote: Not to mention the size of the Roman army of the period as there were, if we may assume that the 2 parts of the Notitia can be used as a reasonable estimate for the early C5th, 93 legions in the field armies to which those of the limitanei would have to be added.

The dates I have read about the ND of the west and the east is that it is right in the middle of the ending of the fifth age and the beginning of the sixth age. So it leaves the possibility the west is organised for the fifth age and the east has changed it organisation for the sixth age. But I cannot confirm this either way as the ND is not my specialty and I don’t think there is enough empirical data to nail it down.

I think I can pretty safely say that there is zero evidence for any change in the organisation of the units of the Roman army between c.395AD and c.420AD (the accepted dates that cover the two halves of the ND).

However, units of 3000 men, 4000 men, 5000 men and 6000 men seem to fit the power of 5 and produce numbers found in the primary sources.

For the C4th/5th I don't think there is any evidence for such units from the sources of the period (as opposed to later less reliable ones). Coello's work is pretty good for this - and IIRC you can get his PHd on late Roman unit sizes from ETHOS, and it is pretty much what was later published. At the very least you'd know what you'd be arguing against.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Nik wrote: Not to mention the size of the Roman army of the period as there were, if we may assume that the 2 parts of the Notitia can be used as a reasonable estimate for the early C5th, 93 legions in the field armies to which those of the limitanei would have to be added.

The dates I have read about the ND of the west and the east is that it is right in the middle of the ending of the fifth age and the beginning of the sixth age. So it leaves the possibility the west is organised for the fifth age and the east has changed it organisation for the sixth age. But I cannot confirm this either way as the ND is not my specialty and I don’t think there is enough empirical data to nail it down.

I think I can pretty safely say that there is zero evidence for any change in the organisation of the units of the Roman army between c.395AD and c.420AD (the accepted dates that cover the two halves of the ND).

However, units of 3000 men, 4000 men, 5000 men and 6000 men seem to fit the power of 5 and produce numbers found in the primary sources.

For the C4th/5th I don't think there is any evidence for such units from the sources of the period (as opposed to later less reliable ones). Coello's work is pretty good for this - and IIRC you can get his PHd on late Roman unit sizes from ETHOS, and it is pretty much what was later published. At the very least you'd know what you'd be arguing against.

Coello is very careful in his summing up about stating that the evidence is not sufficent to state with any certainty what size the Legiones, auxilia units etc were during the Late Roman period. Sizes range from as low as about 400 to over 2000 for a legion. Hopefully when the full translation of the Perge stones is given we may have a clue to legion sizes in the 470's AD.
Thanks to the help of several people I can say that the sizes of units I quoted in Zosimus in around 400AD are in fact totally useless in working out unit sizes as the units referred to are just called 'Tagma' in the original Greek, which by the way rather undermines a small part of Coello's work as it may be the case he was working from the Latin translation rather than the original Greek.

[nikgaukroger]

I don't think Zosimus just using tagma really undermines Coello's work, but just indicates by that time any real lack of material size difference between legions and auxilia.

[Renatus]

Thanks to the help of several people I can say that the sizes of units I quoted in Zosimus in around 400AD are in fact totally useless in working out unit sizes as the units referred to are just called 'Tagma' in the original Greek, which by the way rather undermines a small part of Coello's work as it may be the case he was working from the Latin translation rather than the original Greek.

In relation to Coello's references to Zosimus, I assume that you are referring to p.29 in the Tempus Reparatum volume and/or p.71 in his thesis. His brief quotations are taken from Ridley's translation. It would appear that, in translating tagmata in the two passages cited (Zos. 5.45.1 and 6.8.2), Ridley divided the number of men by the number of units and, where the result in the first case came to 1200, translated it as 'legions' and, in the second case where the result was 666, as 'cohorts'. Plainly, if one tried to use these figures as evidence for the size of these types units, one would be begging the question and Coello does not do that. However, his comment about Zosimus (inter alia) on p.60 of the Tempus Reparatum volume and p.159 of his thesis (if that is what you had in mind) is certainly questionable.

[Robert Vermaat]

In an attempt to keep this discussion as simple as possibl;e, I've pasted the most recent postings back on the original thread about Late Roman army numbers & the Zodiac.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Thanks to the help of several people I can say that the sizes of units I quoted in Zosimus in around 400AD are in fact totally useless in working out unit sizes as the units referred to are just called 'Tagma' in the original Greek, which by the way rather undermines a small part of Coello's work as it may be the case he was working from the Latin translation rather than the original Greek.

In relation to Coello's references to Zosimus, I assume that you are referring to p.29 in the Tempus Reparatum volume and/or p.71 in his thesis. His brief quotations are taken from Ridley's translation. It would appear that, in translating tagmata in the two passages cited (Zos. 5.45.1 and 6.8.2), Ridley divided the number of men by the number of units and, where the result in the first case came to 1200, translated it as 'legions' and, in the second case where the result was 666, as 'cohorts'. Plainly, if one tried to use these figures as evidence for the size of these types units, one would be begging the question and Coello does not do that. However, his comment about Zosimus (inter alia) on p.60 of the Tempus Reparatum volume and p.159 of his thesis (if that is what you had in mind) is certainly questionable.

You are correct Micheal, as always. I did find the thesis questionable in parts although it is a useful place to start.

[Renatus]

You are correct Micheal, as always.

Flatterer! I'll hold you to that!