Defending the Provinces

[Lothia]

Ave Civitas,

As far as I understand the defense of the Empire was under the direction of the Dux of a military district or the Magister Militum of mobile field armies.
I assume if there was a security incident (wooly-woolies cross the frontier to raid) that they would have to circumvent or engage the border troops first.
Once the border was breached the Dux could commit forces to bring the invaders to ground with one or more of his available units. (if the breach were in his military district)
If the incursion were a greater threat (than the Dux could handle) then the Magister Militum could commit some or all of his mobile army to drive the invaders out.
But what of small scale problems, such as the baucaude (or some two-bit bandit). What does the provincial governor have at his disposal to deal with small time (but big nuisance) crooks?
Thanks in advance,
Tom

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Tom,

As far as I understand the defense of the Empire was under the direction of the Dux of a military district or the Magister Militum of mobile field armies.

Well, when you’re talking about the post-Constantinian Empire you’re on the right track.

You had the border forces (limitanei), who were organized in military districts (often but not always not the same as the provinces), commanded by a dux. Such a-typical military districts are found in endangered regions, such as Britain, the Channel coast or the Rhine, or along the Danube or the Eastern frontier.

After that you had the mobile field army, billeted in towns and on the move (gradually becoming part of the border defense though), usually commanded by a comes.

Above that you have regional commander, a magister militum of a certain region (MM per Gallias), who in turns answers to the magister miltum praesentalis. Mind you, the titles were not set in stone. The MMP could also be referred to simply as as ‘magister militum’. The MMP answered to the Emperor or later to the Patricius.

I assume if there was a security incident (wooly-woolies cross the frontier to raid) that they would have to circumvent or engage the border troops first.

Indeed.

Once the border was breached the Dux could commit forces to bring the invaders to ground with one or more of his available units. (if the breach were in his military district)

That would be the comes with the available field army units, as we see Theodosius the Elder do when Britain is in trouble during the mid-4th c. However, again a warning: the system is not a modern one, we see all sorts of commanders commanding all sorts of task forces. A dux could end up doing the same thing..

If the incursion were a greater threat (than the Dux could handle) then the Magister Militum could commit some or all of his mobile army to drive the invaders out.

For a MM to get involved the whole province would be compromised, but usually this happened more in civil wars than barbarian invasions.

But what of small scale problems, such as the baucaude (or some two-bit bandit). What does the provincial governor have at his disposal to deal with small time (but big nuisance) crooks?

Nope. Zilch. From Constantine onwards, the vicarii and other civil authorities are stripped of their military units, other than perhaps a small bodyguard and policing militia. But no more military units under regular civilian command.

[Nathan Ross]

But what of small scale problems, such as the baucaude (or some two-bit bandit). What does the provincial governor have at his disposal to deal with small time (but big nuisance) crooks?

Nope. Zilch. From Constantine onwards, the vicarii and other civil authorities are stripped of their military units, other than perhaps a small bodyguard and policing militia. But no more military units under regular civilian command.

But I believe there were quite a number of smaller military and paramilitary units scattered around the provinces that, while still under the authority of the Dux, might have been used 'in support of the civil power', as they say nowadays, in just this sort of anti-bandit or police role.

Stationarii were mainly used to guard roads and supply depots, but seem to have been quite capable of operating independently - to oppress the local civilians, for a start! There are also soldiers described as latrunculatores, or 'thief catchers', who may or may not have been stationarii from some nearby outpost.

The outposts or small forts called burgi appear scattered all around the late Roman frontier provinces, and each had its company of burgarii - although whether they were intended just as watchmen or guards or had some wider peacekeeping role in the vicinity is unclear.

Faced with wider outbreaks of brigandage, the governor could presumably petition the dux for troops to restore order, or perhaps just place the matter in the hands of the nearest military commander - a Q Gargilius Martialis is recorded as commanding Moorish cavalry detachments against a 'rebel' (bandit?) called Faraxan at Auzia in Mauretania, probably some time in the third century. I don't know whether the surviving letters of Abinnaeus, commander of Dionysius fort, mention any specific police role, but he seems to have held considerable executive authority in the area and so could have acted against brigands if necessary.

There were also more irregular units, possibly enlisted in times of emergency: the numerus conscriptorum civium, iuniores vici or hastiferi of Trier, for example, or the men commanded by the magister (h)astiferorum of Vienne. These were possibly a kind of city militia, placed under a military officer.

Lastly, when the military failed to respond, civilians could and did raise their own forces: Synesius writes (c.405-415) of 'enrolling companies of officers with the resources at my disposal', and African nobles armed their tenants in support of Gordian in the third century, and so presumably could have done the same if faced with rampaging bandits.

All of the above, by the way, is drawn from MacMullen's Soldier & Civilian in the Later Roman Empire

[Lothia]

Ave,

You guys (Misters Vermaat and Ross )are great. The information was exactly what I was looking for. Thank you both very much.

Tom

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Nathan,

But I believe there were quite a number of smaller military and paramilitary units scattered around the provinces that, while still under the authority of the Dux, might have been used 'in support of the civil power', as they say nowadays, in just this sort of anti-bandit or police role.

The evidence for those kind of troops, or must we even say ‘bands’ is hard to get. Given the strict state laws on the prohibition of arms ownership by private citizens, we should not expect too much of the latter in areas where and times when central control was tight. In more difficult times, as Synesius indeed proves, this could be different. Lack of military support could, at long last, even lead to sedition.

Stationarii were mainly used to guard roads and supply depots, but seem to have been quite capable of operating independently - to oppress the local civilians, for a start! There are also soldiers described as latrunculatores, or 'thief catchers', who may or may not have been stationarii from some nearby outpost.

We don’t know what sort of folk we have here! But when armed civilians, I do not see then as anything of use against raiding tribesmen (or perhaps when less than a dozen), because they can hardly have been anything better than ‘clubmen’ with sticks, hunting weapons and other light arms. City militia were forbidden (except as a last resort) and could therefore hardly have any military training nor impact.

Stationarii could have been special police, but also troops from the local garrison on watch duty.
The same goes for the burgarii, whom I believe were no different than the watchmen on the towers of the Limes – belonging to a garrison nearby, they would have been dispatched to a burgus on watch duty.

Faced with wider outbreaks of brigandage, the governor could presumably petition the dux for troops to restore order, or perhaps just place the matter in the hands of the nearest military commander - a Q Gargilius Martialis is recorded as commanding Moorish cavalry detachments against a 'rebel' (bandit?) called Faraxan at Auzia in Mauretania, probably some time in the third century.
[..]
Lastly, when the military failed to respond, civilians could and did raise their own forces: Synesius writes (c.405-415) of 'enrolling companies of officers with the resources at my disposal', and African nobles armed their tenants in support of Gordian in the third century, and so presumably could have done the same if faced with rampaging bandits.

Similar things happened in other areas. We see noblemen, pestered by raiders, petitioning to the troops in the city (who refuse to leave the gates). Or other noblemen gathering a private force, as in the case of the Gallo-Roman Ecdicius (son-in-law of Avitus) who breaks the siege of Arvernis (Clermont) by the Visigoths with just 18 cavalry.
Nice to read is:
Tomlin, R.S.O. (1979): Meanwhile in North Italy and Cyrenaica..., in: Casey, the End of Roman Britain, pp. 253-270.

There were also more irregular units, possibly enlisted in times of emergency: the numerus conscriptorum civium, iuniores vici or hastiferi of Trier, for example, or the men commanded by the magister (h)astiferorum of Vienne. These were possibly a kind of city militia, placed under a military officer.

Exactly, these were emergency measures, but even here we see the bands being commanded by a military officer.

One force overlooked here is the illegal raising of bodyguards by the rich landowners, known as bucellarii. These were often forbidden (because they could thwart state control – and taxes!), but proved so persistent that by the 6th century, they evolved into military units of reputable strength. Belisarius raised his own Thracian bucellarii as elite troops. Within a 4th c. context however we can doubt whether such bands had any military ‘muscle’, or whether their lords were willing to use them against raiders.