Zodiac and Late Roman Army Organisation

[Flavivs Aetivs]

[...]Reliquae cohortes, prout principi placuisset, a tribunis uel a praepositis regebantur.[...]
He used the imperfect tense. Therefore it is likely that the old system has indeed not survived.

The only thing I have to say right now is that that just helped me understand the imperfect tense better.

[nikgaukroger]

Evan, I don't want to appear rude, but was it really necessary to quote the whole of the preceding post for a 1 line comment? It does rather clog up the forum.

[D B Campbell]

One inscription says that the new deployed Legion of Lanciarii (CIL VI 2759 2787 32943) included a schola equitum (CIL VI 32965 Valerio Maxentio aequiti ex numero lanciarorum. Vixit annos XXVI, militavit annos VI. Iscola aequitum bene merenti fecit). Insofar it is probably not the right way to say that Vegetius's descriptions are wrong in general or to mistrust most of his descriptions.

It's a fine point, but probably worth making here, if it will remove an element of misunderstanding from the debate. The inscriptions that you have listed do not show that there was a newly deployed legion of lanciarii.

CIL VI 02759 (ILS 2045, Rome): D(is) M(anibus) / Val(erius) Tertius militi / co(ho)rti(s) X pr(a)etori(a)e qui / vixit annis XXXVI me(n)s(ibus) III / die(bu)s XV militabit legi/one M(o)esiaca ann(i)s V in/ter lanciarios annis XI / in pr(a)etoria ann[is --] / |(centuria) Salbi Zipe[--] / (h)eres et cete[ri commanu]/culis pr[--]/cvit [--] / I[--]
CIL VI 2787 (Rome): D(is) M(anibus) / Val(erius) Ursinus mi(les) / lanciarius nat(ione) / Italus qui vix(it) / ann(os) XXVII stupe/ndiorum(!) IIII Va/l(erius) Vitalis mil(es) c(o)ho(rtis) e(iusdam) / pr(a)e(toriae) commanu/culo bene mere/nt(i) fecit memo/ria // D(is) M(anibus) / Aur(eliae) Cepasiae / qui vixit an/nis VI m(ensibus) III d(iebus) / XXVIII et Fau/stus qui vixit / anno I m(ensibus) X d(iebus) V / Casianus et / Faustus filib(us) / bene merentib(us) f(aciendum) c(uravit)
CIL VI 32943 (Rome): Marcella Martino co(n)iugi bene merenti fecit qui vi/xit ann(os) XXXVIII in prima Minerbes(!) mil(itavit) ann(os) V in und(ecima) / ann(os) IIII in lanciaria ann(os) V in pr(aetoribus?) ann(os) V fecit cum co(n)/iuge sua an(nos) IIII bene mer(enti) in pace
CIL VI 32965 (ILS 2791, Rome): D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) / Val(erio) Maxentio / aeq(uiti) ex numero / lanciar(i)orum / vixit an(nos) XXVI mil(itavit) / an(nos) VI isc(h)ola aequi/tum b(ene) m(erenti) f(ecit)

They show (the first three, at any rate) that there were lanciarii amongst the Praetorians.

The problem goes back to Mommsen. He believed that Diocletian could be credited with "inventing" palatine troops as a counterweight to the Praetorians (Hermes 24, 1899, p. 226), and assumed that they were these lanciarii. Of course, we have a longer perspective than Mommsen, since we are able to look back at the entire corpus of Roman inscriptions that he was only beginning to develop. So it is quite understandable that he was misled, by the mention of lanciarii, into equating them with the N.D.'s palatine legion(s) of the same name (whom he saw in the Lanciarii of Amm. Marc. 21.13.16 and 31.13.8 ).

We now know that lanciarii appear much earlier on the books of II Parthica (e.g. AE 1993, 1574 and 1575). Nischer -- so often vilified -- was quite correct to interpret the lanciarii of the above inscriptions as "apparently a detachment of the Praetorian Guard" (JRS 13, 1925, p. 55).

I am unsure what point you were making, as regards Vegetius. Can you elaborate? (And perhaps divulge your name, as requested under RAT rules?)

[D B Campbell]

It is unlikely in general that Vegetius personally was thinking about the old order of the Pseudo-Hyginus (~ 2nd to early 3rd century - or even more early). And this is also suggested because the commander of his "old" Legion is called Praefectus legionis (II 9) - a typically post-Hyginus office. Before it was the legatus legionis or legatus Augusti pro praetore - and Vegetius is never writing about them - therefore he describes very likely the Legion of the 3rd and 4th century.

I think your dating is much too late. I prefer to follow H.M.D. Parker, who suggested (Classical Quarterly 26, 1932) that the antiqua legio probably reflected the situation during the period AD 260-290, or broadly from Gallienus to Diocletian. (Of course, being Vegetius, he still incorporates one or two misunderstandings.)

Edit: I think your dating of the army described by Ps.-Hyginus is too late, also. Domitian and Marcus Aurelius/Lucius Verus seem to be the chronological limits.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Evan, I don't want to appear rude, but was it really necessary to quote the whole of the preceding post for a 1 line comment? It does rather clog up the forum.

Yeah shouldn't have done that, I'll fix it.

[Marcel Frederik Schwarze]

Hello D B Campbell

Modern history makes progress and provides new inscriptions or other noteworthy findings. This is correct, but this doesn`t negate always all older results.

That what Theodor Mommsen actually said (Militärgeschichte page 225-228) is that the group of Palatini was not invented by Diocletian.
He lists some troops - choosen to accompany the emperor during the campaigns or to guard his court and say [...]und dies sind die späteren Palatini[...] = means: "and those are the later Palatini..."
On page 225 he writes that this "institution" had it`s beginning during the reign of Diokletian (at this point he don`t speaks about THE Palatina, he just say "institution" - which is ok for me since those troops very somewhat preferred compared to others)


That Diocletian has choosen some troops (later known as Palatina) for his personal guarding is well known. In this case he is not wrong.
He also lists (page 226) - like Seeck and Grosse in their own works as well - the CIL VI 2759, 2787, 32943 and 32965.
I can confirm that he referres the Lanciarii to new deployed troops (compare ibid page 230 note 1 and on).

You are absolutely right that Mommsen missed the point that Lanciarii were part of the Praetorians - and this units can be dated to the previous era as well (the pre-diokletianic time).
I know that Lanciarii were also part, in another context, of older troops of the 3rd century. But I`m not convinced yet because:
CIL VI 2759, 2787 and 32943 are explicit speaking about cohortis X praetoriae or lanciarios in praetoria, furthermore lanciarius natione ... cohortis praetoriae and furthermore lanciaria in praetoribus.
CIL VI 32965 however is just speaking about a Numerus Lanciariorum, without any prefix about a Praetorian Cohors. Not an evidence "per se" - however, at least an indication we should consider that we are speaking about a troop of a later periode.

Pseudo-Hyginus
you set the limit of the camp-order regarding Hyginus to Marcus Aurelius` reign (round about 170/180AD) - which is ok for me.
Others, like Domaszewski have put the date to the 3rd century - which is in my opinion still referring to the same era - since all evolutions within the army were accompanied by a steady flowing process of changing. An ad-hoc change is in my opinion conceivable unlikely. But that`s basically what I meant with 2nd to early 3rd century.
And that`s the reason why I believe the core statements of Vegetius (except the part about the Triarii forming a third line during battle and other minor issues (ibid II 16).

The order of Hyginus is completely based upon the old Manipulus. Insofar such an important institution should be casually mentioned in Vegetius - which is not the case as we know.

We have the description about the offices within the Legion (see my last post e.g. praefectus etc) - which suggests that we are speaking about the 3rd century.

Furthermore the description about weapons and armament:
Vegetius
Liber II XV
[...]Haec erat grauis armatura, quia habebant cassides catafractas ocreas scuta gladios maiores, quos spathas uocant, et alios minores, quos semispathia nominant, plumbatas quinas positas in scutis, quas primo impetu iaciunt, item bina missibilia, unum maius ferro triangulo unciarum nouem, hastili pedem quinque semis, quod pilum uocabant, nunc spiculum dicitur, ad cuius ictum exercebantur praecipue milites, quod arte et uirtute directum et scutatos pedites et loricatos equites saepe transuerberat, aliud minus ferro unciarum quinque, hastili pedum trium semis, quod tunc uericulum, nunc uerutum dicitur.[...]
He describes the weapons of the old Legion and say that they were equipped with Spatha and Semi-Spatha. Furthermore they had 5 plumbata (darts) attached in the concavity of the shield. They had likewise 2 spears. A longer one called Pilum - now called Spiculum. The other smaller Spear was called vericulum - now called verutum.
The next texts describes the usage of manubalistae and arcubalistae.
Not an evidence per se - however another indication, since most weapons are matching our discussed periode.

According Arrianus (he describes the Legion of Hadrianus +/- 120/130AD) the soldiers had carried just one spear
kontos in the meaning of the pilum - it was the weapon of the first rank.
The rear rank of lonchophoroi were equipped with the lancea.
Arrianou ektaxis kata Alanon
[...]pro ton akontiston tous hoplitas[...]
[...]kai lonchas hoi lonchophoroi akontizetosan hoi te psiloi kai hoi thyreophoroi[...]

In Vegetius every man in the first 5 Cohors was equipped now with 2 pila - but when he comes to the second line he just say that they (the soldiers) were equipped in a "similar way". Perhaps the lancea was still in use - at least an interesting note as suggested in Vegetius Liber III XIIII
[...]Instructionis lex est, ut in primo exercitati et ueteres milites conlocentur, quos antea principes uocabant, in secundo ordine circumdati catafractis sagittarii et optimi milites cum spiculis uel lanceis ordinentur, quos prius hastatos uocabant. [...]

So, it is in my opinion important to check certain elements of Vegetius` report isolated from the rest.
It is also interesting to note that he sometimes tells the reader that he knows something, - another time he say "this was so and so - as it is teached (today)...".
II 16 about the Triarii, for example, has a sentence which is written in the Konjunktiv II (in english Subjunctive mood).
One sentence is written wishy-washy or vague.
[...]qui genu posito subsidebant, ut, si primae acies uincerentur, ab his quasi de integro reparata pugna posset sperari uictoria[...]
They (the Triarii) went to his knees when the first ranks would be defeated. Speak with "allegedly" or "It should have been so". He is not sure of himself. In any case I win here this impression. Quite different from other chapters or subchapters of him - when he has obviously better information about the old Legion.

best regards

[D B Campbell]

Hello D B Campbell

Hello, Pompey.

CIL VI 32965 however is just speaking about a Numerus Lanciariorum, without any prefix about a Praetorian Cohors. Not an evidence "per se" - however, at least an indication we should consider that we are speaking about a troop of a later periode.

I think you were making the point that Vegetius was correct to mention legionary cavalry, because the lanciarii had cavalry. But this inscription -- undoubtedly later than the others, from its mention of a schola, which is surely a Constantinian entity -- does not refer to a legion. In fact, just as the Praetorians appear to have had lanciarii amongst their number, we might be so bold as to conjecture -- although based on the evidence of a single inscription -- that the scholae similarly had an element of lanciarii. (Or have I misunderstood you?)

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Pseudo-Hyginus
you set the limit of the camp-order regarding Hyginus to Marcus Aurelius` reign (round about 170/180AD) - which is ok for me.

161-180.

[...]Haec erat grauis armatura, quia habebant cassides catafractas ocreas scuta gladios maiores, quos spathas uocant, et alios minores, quos semispathia nominant, plumbatas quinas positas in scutis, quas primo impetu iaciunt, item bina missibilia, unum maius ferro triangulo unciarum nouem, hastili pedem quinque semis, quod pilum uocabant, nunc spiculum dicitur, ad cuius ictum exercebantur praecipue milites, quod arte et uirtute directum et scutatos pedites et loricatos equites saepe transuerberat, aliud minus ferro unciarum quinque, hastili pedum trium semis, quod tunc uericulum, nunc uerutum dicitur.[...]
He describes the weapons of the old Legion and say that they were equipped with Spatha and Semi-Spatha. Furthermore they had 5 plumbata (darts) attached in the concavity of the shield. They had likewise 2 spears. A longer one called Pilum - now called Spiculum. The other smaller Spear was called vericulum - now called verutum.
The next texts describes the usage of manubalistae and arcubalistae.
Not an evidence per se - however another indication, since most weapons are matching our discussed periode.

By Semi-Spatha I assume he is referring to the Gladius.

This (what you said) checks out, even though I've only taken 1 unit of Latin so far. My question is why he mentions the Spiculum? Because I thought it had fallen out of use in the late 3rd Century.
Also the term "Verutum" had been in use since the Republican Army, so shy does he imply the name change.?

According Arrianus (he describes the Legion of Hadrianus +/- 120/130AD) the soldiers had carried just one spear
kontos in the meaning of the pilum - it was the weapon of the first rank.
The rear rank of lonchophoroi were equipped with the lancea.
Arrianou ektaxis kata Alanon
[...]pro ton akontiston tous hoplitas[...]
[...]kai lonchas hoi lonchophoroi akontizetosan hoi te psiloi kai hoi thyreophoroi[...]

In Vegetius every man in the first 5 Cohors was equipped now with 2 pila - but when he comes to the second line he just say that they (the soldiers) were equipped in a "similar way". Perhaps the lancea was still in use - at least an interesting note as suggested in Vegetius Liber III XIIII
[...]Instructionis lex est, ut in primo exercitati et ueteres milites conlocentur, quos antea principes uocabant, in secundo ordine circumdati catafractis sagittarii et optimi milites cum spiculis uel lanceis ordinentur, quos prius hastatos uocabant. [...]

So, it is in my opinion important to check certain elements of Vegetius` report isolated from the rest.
It is also interesting to note that he sometimes tells the reader that he knows something, - another time he say "this was so and so - as it is teached (today)...".

Don't know much about Arrian and the Strategikon, haven't managed to acquire a copy.

I believe you said in your original thread that he was referencing the Second line as to carrying Lancaea as the Govenor of Cappadocia (Can't Remember his name) did in his encounter with the Sarmatae in the 2nd century (141 I believe). Judging by the name Lanciarii I would also presume the Lancea/Verutum (Doesn't matter as both were three-sided javelins as described by Vegetius Above) was still in use by skirmisher units such as the Lanciarii and Exculcatores.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Hello D B Campbell

Hello, Pompey.

CIL VI 32965 however is just speaking about a Numerus Lanciariorum, without any prefix about a Praetorian Cohors. Not an evidence "per se" - however, at least an indication we should consider that we are speaking about a troop of a later periode.

I think you were making the point that Vegetius was correct to mention legionary cavalry, because the lanciarii had cavalry. But this inscription -- undoubtedly later than the others, from its mention of a schola, which is surely a Constantinian entity -- does not refer to a legion. In fact, just as the Praetorians appear to have had lanciarii amongst their number, we might be so bold as to conjecture -- although based on the evidence of a single inscription -- that the scholae similarly had an element of lanciarii. (Or have I misunderstood you?)

Hello Dr. Campbell.

I am very much pleased to meet a scholar of your grade. I have never had the oppertunity to discuss a topic such as this with someone like you.

[Robert Vermaat]

@Robert
Sarcasm is probably inappropriate. Especially statements like "your pompeius failed to see that old units and new units existed next to another". This is simply not true since I gave many examples in my elaboration about old and new units - existing in the same time era. Also your Statement is wrong regarding cavalry -attached to the legion in the 3rd century. But later more about this.

@Sarcasm – none intended, so my apologies if it sounded that way. :oops: I probably posted too soon 9and while suffering from a nasty cold that kept me at home for a week), so I think we got off on the wrong foot. I found your contribution on the other forum very interesting.

Btw, we are not looking to ‘bash' Vegetius, but keep an eye open for what can be used as fact and what should probably be regarded as ‘wishful thinking. For one, I don’t read Vegetius as a military handbook, but as an ‘intended’ military handbook. For my research into plumbatae, I believe quite a lot of what he writes.

As to missing quotes, you are quite right to ask for them. I fear this has been a mix of a) haste and b) a simple fact that Vegetius has been discussed here many many times over the years, and members (me included) sometimes forget to include the references every single time when a topic comes up again.. :oops:

To the Ducenarius
[..]
Another sign for his higher rank and higher responsibility compared to the centenarius is given in the Codex Iust. I 27,2 (compare with Johannem Hierosolymilanum episcopum 19) - in which a Centenarius received 2 1/2 annonae and a Ducenarius 3 1/2 annonae. The list after the Ducenarius was just followed by the Senator - then Primicerius and finally by the tribunus.
That this term was confused by Vegetius with the ducentenarius known from horse-racings is pure speculation and it becomes not true if it's repeated like a mantra.

I think you misread the statement made here in the thread. That a ducenarius existed and ranked higher than a centurion is not in this dispute, never was for that matter.
However, it’s the claim of Vegetius that the ducenarius commanded 200 men that’s disputed, and Milner offered a possibility why that may have happened. Vegetius is known to make mistakes (not all the time, but now and then), and (like the claim of the contubernium numbering 10 men) he stands alone here. As you say, the ducenarius may have commanded units of 200 men – I fully agree with you on the actual numbers of units not being fixed.

I offered the ‘ducentenarius’ as an analogy, and as an example of where the word came from – not a military context.
However, it’s not a ‘mantra’, used against ‘evidence’ offered by Vegetius.

And balancing all given information and the fact that even the edictum anastasii page 138 §7 and page 151 mentiones troops of 200 I must say that the circumstance is likely that Vegetius is right once more - and not writing out of the blue.

Again, the number of 200 men in a unit is not in dispute, nor is the ducenarius as a rank. However, Vegetius’ assertion that the ducenarius commanded 200 like centurions commanded 100 men is, to me at least, a generalizing statement.

[nikgaukroger]

By Semi-Spatha I assume he is referring to the Gladius.

If he does mean that he is saying that the legionarii of the antiquita legio carried both a spatha and a gladius. Do we think that is likely?

This (what you said) checks out, even though I've only taken 1 unit of Latin so far. My question is why he mentions the Spiculum? Because I thought it had fallen out of use in the late 3rd Century.

IIRC Bishop & Coulston say that the pilum was in use throughout the C3rd, although no longer the exclusive weapon of the legionarius, and they also note pilum like finds from the C4th that are rather like Vegetius' description of the spiculum.

[D B Campbell]

I’ve also concluded Vegetius 10 man maniple relates to the Servian army and the army of Romulus. The 10 man contubernia belongs to the 100 man century (100 divided by 10 = 10), which belongs to the 6000 man legion.

So Isidore's 6000-man legion is a Servian relic from the 6thC BC? I understood that you wanted it to belong to the late period ca. AD 400.

Vegetius mistake is all to do with the milliary cohort. The legion should be 6000 men accompanied by 666 cavalry. Vegetius has confused the camp organisation which implements the milliary cohort. ... The camp organisation has led Vegetius to mistakenly add an additional 66 cavalry to the milliary cohort and also his mistake with the infantry ends up with a legion of 6100 infantry.

Can you explain what you mean by "the camp organisation", please?

When you say that the legion should be 6000 men, I presume you mean that, in order to fit with your theory, it should be 6000 men. So far, you have cited Isidore in support of this figure, which seems very likely (from points already raised by Renatus amongst others) to have been lifted from Vegetius. (It is slightly suspicious that, at Etym. 9.3.46, Isidore lists in summary the same sequence of units as Vegetius 2.2: the Macedonian phalanx, the Gallic caterva, the Roman legion. Isidore's next sentence is his breakdown of the legion, quoted previously.)

In this manner a cohort has 60 contubernia, so a cohort of 480 men divided by 8 men per contubernia = 60 contubernia, and a 600 man cohort divided by 10 men per contubernia = 60 contubernia. Therefore, a 4800 man legion or a 6000 man legion amounts to 600 contubernia per legion.

I cannot recall any ancient source specifying that a cohort has 60 contubernia. (Not even Isidore, who actually says cohors quingentos milites habet; hence, he believes that there were twelve per legion.) Would you mind citing your source, please?

[ValentinianVictrix]

But whatever the math for the logistics it isn't suggesting that 8000 men in 8-10 units is any more logical to 8000 men in 16 units - which was my point about Adrian's logic that it was.

Sorry for the late reply.

My concern about the number of units is that if we suggest it could have been 16 units of auxilia that accompanied Silvanius then that may well have stripped Gaul of practically every auxilia unit based there! I know using the Notitia for army compositions before 420AD is problematic, but even so the Gallic army only has 15 auxilia palatina units attached to it. Even taking into account destroyed units, disbanded units and units relocated to the East, 16 units of auxilia would appear to be almost all those stationed in Gaul, stripping the defences of troops at a time where Gaul was said to be overrun with barbarians, hence Constantius II sending Julian to deal with them. I would find it easier to agree to say half the number of auxilia being with Silvanius rather than every single auxilia unit stationed in Gaul.

I fully accept the 8000 auxilliaries could well be Frankish or other Germanic mercenaries as we know Silvanius had Franks with him when he was killed.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Adrian,

I know using the Notitia for army compositions before 420AD is problematic, but even so the Gallic army only has 15 auxilia palatina units attached to it.

make that before 394. And then some, it's still a generation before the ND, so the situation could have been different. It was, in the sense that just about everything we find described in the ND of the border defences from Strasbourg to the North did not exist at the time. Julian was sent to just about re-conquer Gaul, and the limitanei defences were afterwards rebuilt by him and others (notably Valentinian). So for all intents and purposes, the number of Palatini units in Gaul will have been different: I am prepared to say that perhaps none existed, and that most if not all were concentrated in Italy. But even if a number were present with the magister militum in Gaul, they were part of the field army and we can't even guess where they all went when the Franks broke through.

Even taking into account destroyed units, disbanded units and units relocated to the East, 16 units of auxilia would appear to be almost all those stationed in Gaul, stripping the defences of troops at a time where Gaul was said to be overrun with barbarians, hence Constantius II sending Julian to deal with them.

As above, i think this was already the case in hand, Julian and his forces being actually the only Roman army present in Gaul at the time, barring those places already refortified. But the situation would have been very different from the situation in 394 or 420 (especially then, because the crisis of 410 would have upset the balance immensely - different discussion). The ND represents a situation of balance and refurbished defences.

I would find it easier to agree to say half the number of auxilia being with Silvanius rather than every single auxilia unit stationed in Gaul.

Silvanius could have received his auxilia palatina units from other places, we don't know most of them.

I fully accept the 8000 auxilliaries could well be Frankish or other Germanic mercenaries as we know Silvanius had Franks with him when he was killed.

Indeed, why not?

[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. The Eastern Was Written between 394 and 396 I believe.

He could have also raised bew units.