06-25-2015, 07:35 AM
"Beginning around the year 325 [..] resulting in the Notitia Dignitatam."
Does Coello suggest 325 to be a date for the composition of the ND? I think that the current consensus is c. 394-5?
"Amongst the comitatenses grade were another grade of unit: the auxilia and legiones palatinae"
Can you have a grade within a grade? If the palatinae units are a subdivision of the comitateneses? You thereafter mention the scholae palatinae and the protectores domestici as a grade next to the limitanei and comitatenses as a personal army for the emperors, but isn't that what the auxilia and legiones palatinae were also meant to be?
Your quotes of Sidonius, while interesting in a discussion about the Roman field army c. 455, do not offer arguments in a discussion about the troops themselves. For a Roman field army could (and now I'm assuming the role of devil's advocate) consist of Germanic volunteers as easily as men drawn from the provinces, and still be large, under full Roman command, and addressed as scholae, agmen, turmae and palatinae. I mean, it's been assumed that especially the guard units attracted many Germanic volunteers, so we could argue either way.
About quoting ancient sources, it's of course very good to use the Original text, but for many readers it would be more helpful to use the English translation in the text of the article and perhaps the Latin in the notes.
"This suggests that Aetius’ Roman manpower was limited: he was unable to promote garrison troops because they refused to leave their homes undefended"
How do you see that? Limitanei were bound to their station by law, but that does of course not mean that their units could not be ordered to new stations, or taken up into the field army.
You then state that Aetius had no access to them because they refused to leave their homes. Who tells you that? Even the famous uprising of Julian's troops a century before is no argument for that, because those same troops followed Julian immediately after their rebellion all the way to Persia! Aetius might have more trouble mobilizing the Germanic federates who had replaced the regular Roman limitanei on the border, but even they are mentioned along the allies.
Your suggestion that the word 'ripuarii' refers to Germans stationed along the Rhine while not referring to the Ripuarian Franks I find a bit mystifying - either you have limitanei units (called ripuarii) which could be quite Germanic or you have federates settled to free/replace those units for the field army, but still quite Germanic. The origins of the Ripuarian Franks, it seems, is as federates settled by the Romans, so there might not be a problem to begin with, even though the term 'Ripuarian Franks' is encountered later.
Olibrones – why would their description as ‘the flower of the allied forces’ mean they were well-equipped? I think we can similarly argue for troops from northern Gaul (Toxandria) for instance, once supplying the best Roman infantry but now de facto under control of Frankish leaders and probably therefore serving in their armies. Does not Sidonius describe Roman officers fighting for the Visgoths as well? Either way we don’t have any other reference to these ‘Olibrones’.
“the Comes Britannium was created after 395, but prior to 405, and did not arrive in Gaul until 408”
Are you referring to the Comes Britanniae, the Comes Britanniarum or the Comes litoris Saxonici per Britanniam?
“By the year 450, the remaining units in Britain, Africa, and Spain had all been destroyed”
A bold statement sir.
I’d say it would be less challenging to say that these units no longer existed, and leave the manner of their disappearance open?
“The Aremoricans, who probably had control of the Comes Britanniarum’s army, would cut another 12,736 comitatenses from the Gallic field army, provided this army wasn’t destroyed under Constantine III’s rebellion, totaling the field forces at 79,072 men."
Once more I think you are making very bold while detailed statements. Why would ‘the’ Aremoricans have the control of the comes Britanniarum’s army? Even if Jones is correct and this army was created post-418, by 454 it may have been moved out of Gaul? The number of men taken from a Gallic field army (12.736 and not 12.735 or 12.737?) seems way too detailed to defend? Similar for the other numbers – I think you should mention rough amounts and perhaps mention the detailed numbers in a note as a result of the computations made above?
Does Coello suggest 325 to be a date for the composition of the ND? I think that the current consensus is c. 394-5?
"Amongst the comitatenses grade were another grade of unit: the auxilia and legiones palatinae"
Can you have a grade within a grade? If the palatinae units are a subdivision of the comitateneses? You thereafter mention the scholae palatinae and the protectores domestici as a grade next to the limitanei and comitatenses as a personal army for the emperors, but isn't that what the auxilia and legiones palatinae were also meant to be?
Your quotes of Sidonius, while interesting in a discussion about the Roman field army c. 455, do not offer arguments in a discussion about the troops themselves. For a Roman field army could (and now I'm assuming the role of devil's advocate) consist of Germanic volunteers as easily as men drawn from the provinces, and still be large, under full Roman command, and addressed as scholae, agmen, turmae and palatinae. I mean, it's been assumed that especially the guard units attracted many Germanic volunteers, so we could argue either way.
About quoting ancient sources, it's of course very good to use the Original text, but for many readers it would be more helpful to use the English translation in the text of the article and perhaps the Latin in the notes.
"This suggests that Aetius’ Roman manpower was limited: he was unable to promote garrison troops because they refused to leave their homes undefended"
How do you see that? Limitanei were bound to their station by law, but that does of course not mean that their units could not be ordered to new stations, or taken up into the field army.
You then state that Aetius had no access to them because they refused to leave their homes. Who tells you that? Even the famous uprising of Julian's troops a century before is no argument for that, because those same troops followed Julian immediately after their rebellion all the way to Persia! Aetius might have more trouble mobilizing the Germanic federates who had replaced the regular Roman limitanei on the border, but even they are mentioned along the allies.
Your suggestion that the word 'ripuarii' refers to Germans stationed along the Rhine while not referring to the Ripuarian Franks I find a bit mystifying - either you have limitanei units (called ripuarii) which could be quite Germanic or you have federates settled to free/replace those units for the field army, but still quite Germanic. The origins of the Ripuarian Franks, it seems, is as federates settled by the Romans, so there might not be a problem to begin with, even though the term 'Ripuarian Franks' is encountered later.
Olibrones – why would their description as ‘the flower of the allied forces’ mean they were well-equipped? I think we can similarly argue for troops from northern Gaul (Toxandria) for instance, once supplying the best Roman infantry but now de facto under control of Frankish leaders and probably therefore serving in their armies. Does not Sidonius describe Roman officers fighting for the Visgoths as well? Either way we don’t have any other reference to these ‘Olibrones’.
“the Comes Britannium was created after 395, but prior to 405, and did not arrive in Gaul until 408”
Are you referring to the Comes Britanniae, the Comes Britanniarum or the Comes litoris Saxonici per Britanniam?
“By the year 450, the remaining units in Britain, Africa, and Spain had all been destroyed”
A bold statement sir.
I’d say it would be less challenging to say that these units no longer existed, and leave the manner of their disappearance open?
“The Aremoricans, who probably had control of the Comes Britanniarum’s army, would cut another 12,736 comitatenses from the Gallic field army, provided this army wasn’t destroyed under Constantine III’s rebellion, totaling the field forces at 79,072 men."
Once more I think you are making very bold while detailed statements. Why would ‘the’ Aremoricans have the control of the comes Britanniarum’s army? Even if Jones is correct and this army was created post-418, by 454 it may have been moved out of Gaul? The number of men taken from a Gallic field army (12.736 and not 12.735 or 12.737?) seems way too detailed to defend? Similar for the other numbers – I think you should mention rough amounts and perhaps mention the detailed numbers in a note as a result of the computations made above?
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
