Batavian legion?

[Macedon]

Zosimus writes of a Batavian tagma (4.9.3.), which was the first to flee during the first great battle of Valentinian against the Germans. The term "tagma" he usually uses in the meaning of legion, so my question is, do you guys know of any Batavian legion at the time, since I only have read of Batavian cohorts?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Batavi Seniores ans Batavi Iuniores - two Legio Palatina units in the Notitia Dignitatum. Also listed are the Equites Batavis Seniores and Iuniores

[Mark Hygate]

Batavi Seniores ans Batavi Iuniores - two Legio Palatina units in the Notitia Dignitatum. Also listed are the Equites Batavis Seniores and Iuniores

Forgive me - but I'm pretty sure they are Auxilia Palatina.

@Macedon - could this be a place where the writer has simply used a term as 'unit' instead of it's normal usage? It wouldn't be the first time. Certainly, afaik, the 'Barbarian Tribal' names only ever referred to the Auxilia Palatina and the cavalry Vexillatio's

[Flavivs Aetivs]

But does Zozimus even distinguish between Legions and Cohorts?

[Macedon]

Forgive me - but I'm pretty sure they are Auxilia Palatina.

@Macedon - could this be a place where the writer has simply used a term as 'unit' instead of it's normal usage? It wouldn't be the first time. Certainly, afaik, the 'Barbarian Tribal' names only ever referred to the Auxilia Palatina and the cavalry Vexillatio's

Theoretically he could, although he seems to be fairly consistent with the use of the term tagma. I have downloaded the ND, but I hadn't had the chance yet to look into it with the necessary care, so I cannot say whether they are classified as legions or anything else in it.

[Macedon]

But does Zozimus even distinguish between Legions and Cohorts?

Read my hitherto assessment in the "Late Antiquity Legion thread as far as his use of military terms is concerned. In a few words he does seem to distinguish between legion (tagma) and another unit (lochos).

[Robert Vermaat]

I think in this case it hardly matters. As far as possible differences bewteen new style unit, the legio palatina as well as the auxilia palatina are roughly similar (1000 and 800 respectively, but of course no hard numbers available). I think the word 'tagma' could be used for both, and I think Evan's identification may be the correct one. Ammianus mentions the Batavi and Heruli in the campaign against the Alamanni, which must be the same occasion I think. Both units (probably brigaded together) came from Moesia and were used in the campaign to restore order in Britain (367) after which they probably remained as part of the western mobile field army (magister peditum).

[Macedon]

How do Roman historical sources call these units? Do they call them "legios" or use some other term? Do they seem to separate them or use some collective term possibly distinguishing later like "6 'legions' of whom 4 were foreign/auxilia etc"?

[Robert Vermaat]

Ah, red flashing warning sign: do never think that the Romans used standard terms ll the time. :-( The word legio has been used throughout this period as a generic term, and for every unit you can think of. Especially by non-military authors such as Zosimos, there is no sharp distinction, as they are unable to differentiate between all the different sorts of units.

[Macedon]

Of course they would not, but it is from the usage of the terms that one can draw conclusions as to probable structural differences (not the onomatology) among various units or groupings thereof. That is, we cannot say whether officially a unit was called A only because a certain author is calling it so, but we can assume that there was some obvious difference from a unit that he consistently calls B.

[Robert Vermaat]

we can assume that there was some obvious difference from a unit that he consistently calls B.

In order to do so we'd have to know what he thought about them. Zosimos was no military man and he may have been using 'unit classes' that were just no there in reality. So even if he was consistent in his usage of military terminology (which I doubt given how he writes on other topics) we just can't be sure that he is wrting about real unit classes. Which is a real shame of course, but it makes me wary to use 'tagma' for only a 6000-strong legion for instance, based on Zosimos only.

Maurikios also uses Greek terminology, but as I (alas!) don't read Greek i have never read the original of his Strategikon - others may have?

[Macedon]

True. However, this does not mean that Zosimus' or other authors' views cannot be indicative. Zosimus still is a man of his age and we can safely assume that he at least knows what is common knowledge, if not indeed more. His use of the terms "telos" and "tagma" when compared with those of the term "lochos" in no way prove but still may serve as an indication that there were "big" and "smaller" units that the non-military and possibly also many of the military men described and grouped as such without of course getting into details. Like today, everyone knows that there are "divisions" and "battalions", although of course very few can talk about the countless little or big differences among the various units. However, we correctly understand that (usually) a battalion is a unit that is (or is supposed to be) smaller than a division. Does this mean that we can from Zosimus reconstruct the whole Roman system? Of course not, but it still is interesting to look into the terminology he uses and then compare it with authors of the same era and with those of other eras in order to better understand the Roman system of his age, in the first case, and the history/evolution of the term usage in the other. To me, the fact that he calls the Batavii a "tagma" and the Mattiarii a "lochos" is interesting and points at them being something different, at least in the author's mind, of course he may be mistaken or just negligent, but still deserves to be considered as a testimony. I have also compiled lists of the term usage of a great number of authors, like Mauricius and Socrates Scholasticus, two name but two that happen to be chronologically near and by comparing the results one may come to make some better supported assumptions regarding the said era. Unfortunately, I have not done and cannot do the same regarding Latin authors.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Is that a copyist' error maybe? The Mattiari Seniores et Iuniores are Legio Comitatenses, while the Batavii are Auxilia Palatina. Maybe the copyist accidentally switched the terms Lochos and Tagma in the passage?

[Macedon]

There may be many reasons for discrepancies and that is the beauty in it. I just now, and with that I mean just 5 minutes ago, read his first mention of the term arithmos, which of course is a direct translation of the Latin numerus, regarding the Roman 30 units Stilicho used -aside the Alan and Hun allies- to attack Radagaisus. The fact that he uses it so late in his work possibly means that he took the number from a source other than his usual ones. Additionally, the fact that both Socrates Scholasticus and Mauricius use this term shows a wide use of it in the 5th and 6th centuries... I still am in the process of the analysis so I cannot say whether his use of the terms is completely conscious, so I cannot yet support whether he uses them to intentionally differentiate between units or not.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

A roman army of 30 numeri could range from 6000 to 30,000 men. I'd imagine that in the context he may have been referring to either a number of around 15,000 (500 men per numerus) or 30,000 (1000 men per numerus) both of which would be plausible estimates for the strength of the Praesental Army of the West at that time.