A Few Questions

[Robert Vermaat]

Does anybody know how to multiquote on this forum? Having to copy and paste every message and reply into one is quite cumbersome.

Best answer each quote in a separate post. It is more readable anyway.

[M. Demetrius]

What Robert says is correct. However, if you're determined to quote from various people in a single post, copy the parts you like, paste them into a word processor document, add your replies, and copy/paste the whole into the message box. If you don't put "XXX said, " before each other person's words, it will be very confusing to the reader.

[Nathan Ross]

Best answer each quote in a separate post. It is more readable anyway.

I actually prefer combined quotes in a single post, as long as they're on the same subject. It reads more like part of an ongoing conversation, rather than a series of brief points.

The cut/paste method is a bit ad hoc, but works fine and doesn't take too long. No need to use a separate document - just click 'quote', copy the message with the quote tags, backspace and 'quote' the next message, paste in the previous bit. Etc - it's quicker and simpler to do than to describe!

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Does anybody know how to multiquote on this forum? Having to copy and paste every message and reply into one is quite cumbersome.

Best answer each quote in a separate post. It is more readable anyway.

What Robert says is correct. However, if you're determined to quote from various people in a single post, copy the parts you like, paste them into a word processor document, add your replies, and copy/paste the whole into the message box. If you don't put "XXX said, " before each other person's words, it will be very confusing to the reader.

Best answer each quote in a separate post. It is more readable anyway.

I actually prefer combined quotes in a single post, as long as they're on the same subject. It reads more like part of an ongoing conversation, rather than a series of brief points.

The cut/paste method is a bit ad hoc, but works fine and doesn't take too long. No need to use a separate document - just click 'quote', copy the message with the quote tags, backspace and 'quote' the next message, paste in the previous bit. Etc - it's quicker and simpler to do than to describe!

Yes, I know ways to get around it, in fact I've been doing what you've suggested, Nathan. It's just annoying, that's all. I frequently miss the "multiquote" function on forums, so I ask just to be sure it's not somewhere obvious and I'm not seeing it ;-)

Anyway, I'm still interested in what people think of some of the points I've made regarding a possibly mid 4th century garrison for Coria.

Oh, another question I have, is when were Late Roman units paid? I know they received anywhere between 1-5 solidi per year, not including donatives and loot, and that by the 4th century deductions for food/clothing etc weren't deducted, but how often were they paid in that year? Monthly, weekly, bi-weekly? In layman's terms, how often would soldiers have dosh to spend?

Thanks again.

[Nathan Ross]

when were Late Roman units paid?... Monthly, weekly, bi-weekly? In layman's terms, how often would soldiers have dosh to spend?

Traditionally, soldiers were paid their stipendium in three instalments throughout the year - as far as I know that continued into the late empire. There would also be cash donatives on the emperor(s)'s accession and at five-year intervals after that, so at a time of collegiate emperors the troops could be getting quite a bit of coinage. The annonae (pay in kind) would presumably be distributed at the same time as the rest of the stipendium. Paul Elliot's The Last Legionary has some good best-guesses for the pay and conditions of a late Roman soldier.

the Notitia Dignitatum lists under the authority of the Dux Britanniarum a few units we know almost nothing of... I don't think it would be outside of the bounds of reason to speculate maybe one or other of those were stationed closer to the wall than the "old" ones, simply because the wall in those turbulent 20-30 years was where all the action was happening, and it was clear the existing garrison plus the old legions were unable to handle what was going on effectively... I do believe it may have been possible Corbridge housed one of these "legions" which we know were no bigger than 500-1000 men...

But was the 'action' really happening close to the wall? We don't actually get much idea from the sources where these various supposed campaigns in Britain took place or what they involved. The events of 367, as Ammianus reports them, certainly involved Picts and Scots (from north of the wall, but also Ireland), but otherwise featured the defeat of Fullofaudes at an undisclosed location and of Nectarides in (presumably) a southern coastal area...

The later account of Theodosius's actions in restoring the province suggests that the fighting encompassed the whole of Britain, and the enemy crossed the wall defences quickly and easily. The reference to Theodosius 'protecting the borders with guard posts' actually suggests that the Hadrian's wall defences had been virtually abandoned by this date, and the watch on the frontier entrusted to those mysterious and duplicitous 'areani' - this would explain how the Picts managed to penetrate so far into Britain as to reach London and the south coast. They may also, like the Scots and Attacotti, have been moving by sea...

So I don't think there's necessarily any reason to imagine large concentrations of troops at Corbridge or anywhere else in the frontier zone. But there are, of course, so many unknowns in the picture that you could probably invent whatever you liked. I'd still be wary of importing field army units though - Ammianus 27.8 suggests that the regular garrison of Britain was entirely limitanei in 367, and fell to pieces very rapidly!

It will be a historical novel, fiction obviously, grounded in the year(s) and the events leading up to the Barbarian Conspiracy of 367-368, through the eyes of the prefect of one of the numerus on the wall.

Have you seen this one, published last month? Less of a direct military focus, perhaps. I actually wondered if you might be the author...

[Nathan Ross]

Here's a book that came out last year that looks like it might make some interesting points about the wall garrison in the 4th century:

Hadrian's Wall and the End of Empire: The Roman Frontier in the 4th and 5th Centuries

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Thanks Nathan,

You have indeed been very, very helpful. If indeed soldies were paid three times p.a (presumably every four months) then they certainly would have had to be careful on what they spent it on!

As for Fullofaudes, I'd imagine he died fighting against the Saxons, while Nectaridus fell in the north, though the lack of concrete evidence either way gives me room for a bit of interpretation. Also, Ammianus suggests the Wall garrisons rebelled and mutinied, allowing the invaders through, this doesn't suggest it wasn't manned (I very much doubt that) but that they conscientiously betrayed the Roman authorities, and the areani played a bit part in that.

In regards to the books you've provided, the second one seems very very useful, than you so much for that. As for the first... it is with no small degree of disappointment I see someone has more or less beat me to my chosen topic (the conspiratio barbarica) - I spent a good amount of time researching the available fiction to see what had already been done (obviously not enough though!) and in a sense my novel will lose its "novelness". Oh well! ;-)

[Robert Vermaat]

Here's a book that came out last year that looks like it might make some interesting points about the wall garrison in the 4th century:
Hadrian's Wall and the End of Empire: The Roman Frontier in the 4th and 5th Centuries

Nice book... but I can't afford that price! No less than GBP 50 for the Kindle edition.... ad:

[Robert Vermaat]

As for Fullofaudes, I'd imagine he died fighting against the Saxons, while Nectaridus fell in the north, though the lack of concrete evidence either way gives me room for a bit of interpretation. Also, Ammianus suggests the Wall garrisons rebelled and mutinied, allowing the invaders through, this doesn't suggest it wasn't manned (I very much doubt that) but that they conscientiously betrayed the Roman authorities, and the areani played a bit part in that.

In regards to the books you've provided, the second one seems very very useful, than you so much for that. As for the first... it is with no small degree of disappointment I see someone has more or less beat me to my chosen topic (the conspiratio barbarica) - I spent a good amount of time researching the available fiction to see what had already been done (obviously not enough though!) and in a sense my novel will lose its "novelness". Oh well! ;-)

Two things about Ammianus and the events of 367.

1) Ammianus clearly did not know what had happened. Either he did not have the sources who had the details, or the situation had been confused so that no one really had the details. Or the details were suppressed - there is something very strange about this episode as well as the end of it.
2) The word 'conspiracy' is extremely overrated. Anmmianus uses this word to described the origins of the crisis, but earlier in his work he describes a similar 'conspiracy', which includes just about every enemy of the Roman empire. Of course, no historian took that conspiracy as a real event, while chosing differently for the smaller conspiracy of 367. In my opinion, without any good reason. In my opinion, both conspiracies are based on a similar origin - the pen of the author. There was an event in 367, possibly related to enemey incursions, but possibly a rebellion of sorts can also be to blame, resulting in military defeat and chaos, due to or exploited by foreign enemies.

Zosimus totally ignores this 'conspiracy'. He mentions only this:
"About this time, a person named Valentinian for some offence was banished to the island of Britain, and endeavouring there to render himself absolute, was at once deprived of his life and his hopes." (Book IV)
Together with the strange province named 'Valentia', we may have to look for a rebellion with disastrous results, rather than three barbarian peoples being able to make a pact (never seen before or after) and overturning Roman Britain as a result.

[AMELIANVS]

I also have a little question-Does anybody else see here a possible Pilum type of javelins as it seems to me?Frieze is from arch of Constantine,Im not sure if I ever noted this detail before.Yeah I know its quite possible this was discuss somwhere already.
And yet one humble request: could someone be so kind and post me a photo of the same arch where a contemporary shield is decorated by dragons?

[Urselius]

A pilum with a lead weight, or even, as the right one looks curved above the "ball," a type of falx. The level of detail in the sculpture is too crude and weathered to be certain. My feeling is that it would be unusual to depict a spear being held in both hands and that a pilum would be a less than ideal weapon for a guardsman in close attendance on a emperor to carry.

Byzantine emperors are thoughrt to have had romphaia-equipped guards at a later date. The romphaia has been claimed to have been a type of falx. This has been challenged at least once with the special weapons carried by guards that are mentioned in sources being identified as Varangian axes. However, in a description of a rebellion against Basil II some of the usurper's imperial regalia was captured in battle, including the romphaia - if these were Dane-axes then how would they be immediately distinguishable form those carried by the probably many hundreds of Russo-Norse mercenaries also present?

[AMELIANVS]

Of course it is quite likely its not a pilum but rather something else but it shares some similarities with 3rd(mainly)century stylized pila on tombstones,so it just caught my attention.

[Nathan Ross]

it is with no small degree of disappointment I see someone has more or less beat me to my chosen topic (the conspiratio barbarica)

I wouldn't lose heart - considering the amount of time it takes to write a novel, rewrite it, find an agent, find a publisher, edit it and wait for a suitable opening in the publishing schedule (which could all take 2-3 years), anything could have happened by the time it sees the light of day... mile:

Meanwhile, if you haven't done so already, take a look at the first few chapters of Wallace Breem's 1970 novel Eagle in the Snow, which also concerns the 367 'conspiracy'...

Ammianus and the events of 367... there is something very strange about this episode as well as the end of it.

I'll say! I think the idea that there was some sort of provincial revolt or army mutiny, perhaps led by this mysterious Valentinus, with perhaps other groups taking advantage of a breakdown in imperial control, is more likely than a massive barbarian conspiracy and rebellion. But Ammianus is too vague to allow for any certainty.

In the meantime, it's fertile ground for fictions. There was a recent theory (by Guy Halsall?) that Hadrian's Wall was settled by barbarian laeti from the continent - Franks or Saxons. Could they have been the 'areani' trusted to defend the frontier? Could they have been suborned by a traitorous Roman renegade, or infiltrated by other barbarians from further north? So much, perhaps, is possible...

;-)

[Nathan Ross]

one humble request: could someone be so kind and post me a photo of the same arch where a contemporary shield is decorated by dragons?

Here you are. It's actually from one of the bases of the Arch:

[attachment=7853]ArchConstantineShield.jpg[/attachment]

Figure of winged Victory on a globe in the top half, with linked animal/dragon heads in the lower half. It's worth mentioning that these bases were possibly plundered from an earlier monument by Diocletian or Maxentius, so may not relate to Constantine's campaign, although they are roughly contemporary.