Palatina units

[nikgaukroger]

As I understand it the term "palatina" is first attested for units at the start of the reigns of Valentinian and Valens in 365.

Is there any indication of why this terminology started to be used?

Thanks.

[Mark Hygate]

To the best of my knowledge...

The Palatine Hill is one of the 7 hills of Ancient Rome itself and from the time of the first emperor was where the Imperial Palace was built.  The 'Army of the Palatine' suggests the appearance of the first 'Central Field Army' under the direct control of the Emperor.

Whilst I know many have criticised some of his work since, Barker (1981) suggested that the original 'Central Field Army' was created after Constantine (and the demise of the Praetorian Guard) and consisted of: 5 Vexillationes Palatina; 5 Legiones Palatina; and 10 Auxilia Palatina.

However, once could also argue that the concept of the 'Central Field Army' came into being over a century before when Severus raised I, II & III Parthica for the Eastern Campaign, but kept II Parthica in Italy South of Rome in a new Camp at Albanum.

Subsequent to, perhaps, Constantine's changes additional 'Palatina' (elite?) units were created, but in general, additional nodal Field Armies were formed with units with a 'Comitatenses' suffix.  This happened for Cavalry and Legionary troops, but not for Auxilia; but many more Auxilia Palatina units were created.

In short - 'Palatina' suggests the newer elite units of the new Central Field Armies, after the older units became tied to the borders.

[Nathan Ross]

first attested for units at the start of the reigns of Valentinian and Valens

I was wondering about this question myself just recently. It's not easy to answer!

There are a couple of references in Ammianus to what might be palatine troops. The earliest dates from AD354, and concerns the last days of Caesar Gallus, who was told that for his military guard he should be content with "palatinis et protectorum cum Scutariis et Gentilibus" (Amm. Mar 14.7.9) - this is palatini and protectores plus the Scholae Scutarii and Gentilorum. But does this necessarily refer to the palatine auxilia and legiones that we know from the Notitia Dignitatum, or (as the context suggests) to some more limited form of bodyguard troops?

There's another reference (26.6.5) to a certain Strategius, an associate of Procopius in AD365, formerly a soldier of the palatini but now a senator, "Strategium quendam ex palatino milite senatorem." Once again, the level of promotion suggests that Strategius was not just a man in a line regiment!

The earliest apparent reference to palatine troops in the Theodosian Code also comes from AD365, at the start of the reign of Valentinian and Valens, a law (8.1.10) concerning quartermasters of 'palatini and comitatensian units' ("Actuariis palatinorum et comitatensium numerorum").

However, it's not entirely clear if the 'palatine units' in this case are what we might think. The Code elsewhere uses palatini extensively to refer to court officials. Ammianus Marcellinus does as well - at a couple of points referring to a palatina cohors, which is a band of courtiers. All the Constantinian-era references to palatini are about these court officials (so named because they serve in sacro palatio), not soldiers.

For clear references to Palatine troops in the Theodosian Code we have to wait until the very period of the Notitia itself, with two laws from the time of Honorius: 7.1.18, addressed to Stilicho in AD400, lists "comitatensibus ac palatinis numeris ad alios numeros militem" ('comitatensis and palatine units and other military units'), while 7.4.22 of AD396 lists "scholae... vexillationes comitatenses aut palatinae neque legiones ullae neque auxilia": so it's clear that the palatine troops in this case are not Scholae.

There's another interesting reference in Ammianus, meanwhile, about the troops that Comes Theodosius took to Africa to oppose Firmus in AD373: "comitatensis auxilio militis pauci" (29.5.3) - these could well have been the same paired auxilia units that he used earlier in Britain, but here they seem to be referred to as 'auxilia comitatensis'! Ammianus is often a bit vague with his military terminology though.

My guess would be that the 'palatine' designation was an aspect of late Roman grade and title inflation. Originally the palatini were court officials, but the name was later extended to refer also to court bodyguard soldiers (like the candidati, perhaps?). At some point, either under Valentinian or much later under Theodosius or Honorius, the more senior comitatensis troops were given this additional designation to signify their proximity to the emperor and the imperial court and palace.

Barker (1981) suggested that the original 'Central Field Army' was created after Constantine (and the demise of the Praetorian Guard) and consisted of: 5 Vexillationes Palatina; 5 Legiones Palatina; and 10 Auxilia Palatina.

I've never seen anything like that in any source! Is it possible that Barker just made it up?

[nikgaukroger]

My guess would be that the 'palatine' designation was an aspect of late Roman grade and title inflation. Originally the palatini were court officials, but the name was later extended to refer also to court bodyguard soldiers (like the candidati, perhaps?). At some point, either under Valentinian or much later under Theodosius or Honorius, the more senior comitatensis troops were given this additional designation to signify their proximity to the emperor and the imperial court and palace.

Thanks for the reply. Must confess that the above is my gut feeling on the matter as well.

Barker (1981) suggested that the original 'Central Field Army' was created after Constantine (and the demise of the Praetorian Guard) and consisted of: 5 Vexillationes Palatina; 5 Legiones Palatina; and 10 Auxilia Palatina.

I've never seen anything like that in any source! Is it possible that Barker just made it up?

Barker took a lot of his information from Jones' analysis of the Notitia so may derive from there - like you I'm pretty sure it doesn't come from any original source.

[Mark Hygate]

Barker (1981) suggested that the original 'Central Field Army' was created after Constantine (and the demise of the Praetorian Guard) and consisted of: 5 Vexillationes Palatina; 5 Legiones Palatina; and 10 Auxilia Palatina.

I've never seen anything like that in any source! Is it possible that Barker just made it up?

Barker took a lot of his information from Jones' analysis of the Notitia so may derive from there - like you I'm pretty sure it doesn't come from any original source.

And I too, apart from some interpolation of the Notitia, have found nothing since I had time to look over the last decade now either.  Curiously, however, and having had those numbers stored away for some 40 years now, I found it dovetailed with the work I've been doing when it seemed to make perfect sense that the 'Severan Field Army' and the post-Constantine Barker figures equated to almost exactly the same amount of troops with no need for more barracks to be built!

[Colonel Chabert]

Barker's list, with its 5-5-10 structure, is found on p.13 of his "The Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome" (1981).
I would suggest that, for the infantry at least, a more likely structure is 6-12. In his list of Legiones Palatinae Barker has the Lanciarii, Ioviani, Herculiani, Divitenses and Tungricani but omits the Mattiarii. To his 10 Auxilia Palatinae should be added the second Batavi (the one partnered with the Regii) and the Ascarii, making 12.
It is significant I think that, in the Notitia Dignitatum, Legiones Palatinae appear in groups of six; there are six in each of the two eastern praesental armies and in the west there are six old regiments and six recently promoted ones. There is of the course the anomalous case of the Britones Seniores in Illyricum, the 25th Legio Palatina, but I don't know of any explanation for that.