Posts: 4,223
Threads: 176
Joined: Mar 2003
Reputation:
171
The auxilia palatina of the later Roman army are usually said to have been raised from 'Germanic' barbarians of one sort or another. Some of the units listed in the Notitia Dignitatum have the names of German tribes, although whether these relate directly to their recruitment or are ceremonial I don't know.
Some of the senior ones, though, have different and unusual names - what do these mean?
Cornuti is usually glossed as having something to do with horns, and a link sometimes made to the troops on the arch of Constantine with horned helmets (supposedly, although this seems a bit fanciful - they look more like feathers to me!)
Bracchiati means - something worn on the arm, perhaps?
Petulantes - what would the translation of 'petulant' be in this context? I keep thinking of a sulky schoolgirl, which surely isn't right...
Celtae - why would this unit be particularly 'celtic' if the others weren't?
Mattiaci - this at least is the name of a German tribe. But Mainz, or a fort in the vicinity, seems to have been named Castellum Mattiacorum at some point, and there's an inscription (AE 1911, 00232) from there to 'milites Mattiacorum', so perhaps this unit was raised or initially based in Mainz?
Karl Strobel ('Strategy and Army Structure between Septimius Severus and Constantine the Great', in Erdkamp's Companion to the Roman Army) makes the odd claim that the Cornuti, Petulantes etc were raised in Denmark and Schleswig - which seems very specific but is not explained! Anybody know where he got this idea?
Lastly - were the auxilia palatina organised as numeri? This would make sense, as the term goes back to the principiate for an irregular 'barbarian' unit. There are inscriptions to a numero Mattiacorum seniorum (CIL 05, 08737), a semissalis of the same unit (CIL 05, 08739), a centenario numeri bracchiatorum (CIL 05, 08740) and a couple decribed as biarcho de numero equitum bracchiatorum (CIL 05, 08760), all from Concordia (whatever was going on there?). Might the last two suggest that some of these auxilia units contained a mounted component?
Nathan Ross
Posts: 37
Threads: 3
Joined: May 2011
Reputation:
0
"petulans" in late / medieval Latin means "audacius". a quite suitable name!
Posts: 4,861
Threads: 129
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation:
32
There is much threoy about the Numerus and the Maniple being enstated in the 4th century:
On the Total War center forums we argued that the Maniple was a term for the 4th century, which was then called a Numerus, both led by a Ducenarius. This can somewhat be supported by texts of the 5th and 6th century. I belive Maurice's strategikon lists a unit of 2 centuries (not sure on the name though) and I'm pretty sure the thematic system had one. There may be other references I do not know of, but it is mostly speculative. Albeit, the Manipular system would be useful in the time considering many units were spread out in vexiliationes, because they would be large enough to operate as one unit, but still could be placed under individual command to do things like flanking operations and ambushes (and even then further divided into contuberniae).
Also, I belive the Term Numerus is frequently used by 5th century writers and Orators.
The palantines, I do not believe, were irregular barbarian units. It is most likely that these were professional core troops of the Roman Field Armies - as is shown during the campaigns of Julian and Friends in Gaul leading up to the Battle fo Strausbourg. This can also be inferred by them being listed as the core of Aetius army in the 5th century (although many of these references are somewhat vague, such as sidonius appolinaris calling them "Auxilia Exquisiti" when commenting to the leadup on Chalons).
Posts: 539
Threads: 18
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
8
Two things come to mind...
Firstly that there is no evidence, that I am aware of, to positively suggest that a later Field Army Auxilium Palatina was not simply a normal 6 century/3 maniple cohort in size; although there is textual evidence (principally Ammianus) that could well suggest that the Auxilia units themselves were commonly paired (possibly a later use of maniple and meeting the common phrasing used of 'units being drawn up in their centuries, cohorts and maniples').
Secondly, that it had long been the practice to name auxiliary units from their point of origin and/or with 'descriptive names' and there is no evidence to suggest that this had changed either. The conflicts were, in the West, mostly confined to the warlike tribes of the Germanic and Danubian frontiers and it would appear that this continued to be the source. What better way to reduce the fighting power of your nearest possible enemies than take their warriors into your own army and keep them busy. 
Posts: 15,116
Threads: 415
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
77
Quote:The auxilia palatina of the later Roman army are usually said to have been raised from 'Germanic' barbarians of one sort or another. Some of the units listed in the Notitia Dignitatum have the names of German tribes, although whether these relate directly to their recruitment or are ceremonial I don't know.
It's hazardous to guess the origin of a Late Roman unit on the basis of it's name. Even 'easy' ones like the Septimani do not guarantee an origin from an older Legio VII. In the case of Germanic tribal names too, the link can me made but without background information we simply cannot be sure. Indeed, the Celtae come to mind, or the Latini and Sabini!
Posts: 15,116
Threads: 415
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
77
Quote: On the Total War center forums we argued that the Maniple was a term for the 4th century, which was then called a Numerus, both led by a Ducenarius.
On what grounds? Numerus is a generic name for 'unit' and was used from anything like a century to a legionary vexillation of a few thousand men! During the late Roman period it's quite normally used for 'infantry unit'. The maniple was not (as far as I kno) used in new style units from Diocletian onwards. Archaic texts like those of Ammianus Marcellinus may use the word, but it's no longer used in new style regiments. We do not know what a ducenarius was or what he commanded. Although Vegetius makes the ducenarius a commander over a double century, we know nothing of the sort. In fact this may be due to a misunderstanding of Vegetius, who mentioned this rank as a rank between the centurion and the primus pilus of his theoretical ‘Legio Antiqua’. Vegetius was in all probability wrongly equating ‘ducenti’ into ‘ducentenarius’.
So where do we place the ducenarius? An infantry regiment (of 500 to 1000 men) was commanded by a tribunus, who was supported by a praepositus (a post, but also a title for the tribunes and prefects meaning ‘officer-commanding’), a primicerius (the senior NCO or regimental lieutenant-commander, replacing an absent tribunus), a vicarius (the highest non-commissioned officer who could assume command in absence of a tribunus as ‘acting-tribune’) and a campidoctor (formerly the regimental drill but now third behind the tribunus and the primicerius). This leaves almost no room for a ducenarius as established commander of 200 men. We see this reflected in the pay. A tribunus received 7.5 or probably 8 annonae, a primicerius received 5 annonae, a ducenarius received 3.5 annonae, a centenarius received two-and-a-half annonae. The ducenarius receives by far not enough to be interpreted as the commander of a double century. I would say that this would probably make the ducenarius into a centenarius with extra duties.
Quote: I belive Maurice's strategikon lists a unit of 2 centuries (not sure on the name though) and I'm pretty sure the thematic system had one.
The Strategikon does not list units like that. Generic units numbering 200 men do occur but only much later I think.
Quote:Albeit, the Manipular system would be useful in the time considering many units were spread out in vexiliationes, because they would be large enough to operate as one unit, but still could be placed under individual command to do things like flanking operations and ambushes (and even then further divided into contuberniae).
maybe it would, but it was abandoned when the New model army was introduced by Diocletian and Constantine. The cohort seems to be the standard unit, which is logical as we hear that each cohort receives a draco standard.
Quote:The palantines, I do not believe, were irregular barbarian units. It is most likely that these were professional core troops of the Roman Field Armies - as is shown during the campaigns of Julian and Friends in Gaul leading up to the Battle fo Strausbourg.
palatines. Indeed, nobody is claiming that they were irregulars. However, they could fight both as heavy infantry 9as we indeed see them do at Strasbourg) but also as light skirmishers 9when they capture german islands in the Rhine using small boats).
Posts: 15,116
Threads: 415
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
77
Quote:Firstly that there is no evidence, that I am aware of, to positively suggest that a later Field Army Auxilium Palatina was not simply a normal 6 century/3 maniple cohort in size; although there is textual evidence (principally Ammianus) that could well suggest that the Auxilia units themselves were commonly paired (possibly a later use of maniple and meeting the common phrasing used of 'units being drawn up in their centuries, cohorts and maniples').
Not maniples. But indeed, they were probably as strong as each other new legio, up to 1000 I think. Pairing was normal for new-style infantry regiments.
Quote:Secondly, that it had long been the practice to name auxiliary units from their point of origin and/or with 'descriptive names' and there is no evidence to suggest that this had changed either. The conflicts were, in the West, mostly confined to the warlike tribes of the Germanic and Danubian frontiers and it would appear that this continued to be the source. What better way to reduce the fighting power of your nearest possible enemies than take their warriors into your own army and keep them busy.
Indeed. But as I argued earlier, it's difficult to speculate about those origins.
Posts: 4,861
Threads: 129
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation:
32
I'd have to find the Thread about Numerii and stuff, Pompeius Magnus made an excellent argument. My own sources are in the storage too :/.
Also, I agree that Palantines had multiple functions - they were like multirole fighters. They could stand ground as heavy infantry, but also act as skirmishers. I belive there are a few depicitions of Palantine units performing those operations, but I'm not sure. Also, don't some historians belive that only the front ranks of a unit wore armor, while the rest were light infantry armed with lancaeae, plumbatae, and Veruta and etc?
Also, I'll have to dig up my source on this but it there was a debate about the Draco only being used in the presence of an Emperor leading an army. Again I'll have to find the thread.
Posts: 317
Threads: 19
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
6
Quote:Also, I agree that Palantines had multiple functions - they were like multirole fighters. They could stand ground as heavy infantry, but also act as skirmishers.
The whole army, but at least the comitatenses could do this. This was the basis of the late roman army: flexibility under any circumstances.
Mark - Legio Leonum Valentiniani
Posts: 4,861
Threads: 129
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation:
32
Quote:Magister Militum Flavius Aetius post=317875 Wrote:Also, I agree that Palantines had multiple functions - they were like multirole fighters. They could stand ground as heavy infantry, but also act as skirmishers.
The whole army, but at least the comitatenses could do this. This was the basis of the late roman army: flexibility under any circumstances.
My point exactly (I didn't mention the comitatenses because we weren't talking about them)
Heck even the limitanei could. Aetius' army was probably mostly pseudocomitatenses and a few units of Palatinae (not counting whatver private retainer he had).
We have many records of Limitanei being used as pseudocomitatenses I believe (although I'd have to look it up).
Posts: 15,116
Threads: 415
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
77
Quote:We have many records of Limitanei being used as pseudocomitatenses I believe (although I'd have to look it up).
That's what pseudocomitatenses are: limitanei units promoted to the comitatenses. It's from the Notitia Dignitatum. They always ranked lowest on the ladder though.
Posts: 4,861
Threads: 129
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation:
32
Quote:Magister Militum Flavius Aetius post=317914 Wrote:We have many records of Limitanei being used as pseudocomitatenses I believe (although I'd have to look it up).
That's what pseudocomitatenses are: limitanei units promoted to the comitatenses. It's from the Notitia Dignitatum. They always ranked lowest on the ladder though.
Well yeah I know that, I'm saying I'd have to look up the records.
Posts: 78
Threads: 8
Joined: Jul 2010
Reputation:
4
Dr Peter Brennan of my home country (Australia) is completing a new edition of the Notitia Dignitatum that will address many of these issues in detail...should be out sooner rather than later.....
Posts: 15,116
Threads: 415
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
77
Quote:Dr Peter Brennan of my home country (Australia) is completing a new edition of the Notitia Dignitatum that will address many of these issues in detail...should be out sooner rather than later.....
That should be interesting indeed.
Posts: 4,861
Threads: 129
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation:
32
Quote:Dr Peter Brennan of my home country (Australia) is completing a new edition of the Notitia Dignitatum that will address many of these issues in detail...should be out sooner rather than later.....
That sounds pretty cool. Unfortunately I only am able to buy 1-2 books a year considering how expensive they are (damn tree-huggers) xD
|
