Themsitius and the Scola scutariorum sagittariorum

[Longovicium]

I recently purchased a copy of Heather and Matthews' 'The Goths in the Fourth Century' (LUP, 1991) in which Themistius' Orations 8 and 10 are translated (for the first time, I believe). Both orations were given under the reign of Valens. The first during the Quinquennalia of Valens (March 26th 368). The second after the 'peace' of 369). Both orations provide a fascinating insight into imperial military and civilian priorities. 10 gives a long excursus on Valen's efforts to rebuild and fortify the Danube frontier and illustrates in detail how the Augustus dealt with the abuses and neglect on the frontier. It really gives an example of both propaganda and information combining together.

Oration 8 however, in detailing Valen's efforts to subdue the Goths, provides one very interesting - and to my mind never-quoted - insight into the Roman army at that time. It is a small reference and I quote it here in full:

" . . .Only yesterday I saw an army better trained that any chorus (Themistius was present at Valens headquarters during the offensive of 368). Homer is obviously quite outdated in admiring Menesthenes as one fit to handle infantry and cavalry. The poet did not know the ordered movement of your phalanx, the instinctive understanding of your cavalry or those trained to live with their weapons, nor was he ever struck with joyful amazement at such a sight. He would, I believe, mock the story of the line and dove, having seen the mobile archers who, leaving the reins to their steeds, shoot more accurately than those with their feet on the ground . . ."

The line and the dove refers to a story where a dove is tethered for archery practice but one archer hits the tether and not the dove - and the next archer hits the flying dove so show off his skill. Themistius is saying that Homer himself would mock this story as insufficient proof of skill if he had seen Valen's equites sagittarii.

Often in this period Julian and Ammianus are quoted in reference to the Later Roman Army - but what I find fascinating here is that of all the troop types Themistius could have singled out (cataphracts, auxilia, or federates, for example), he praises the horse archers above all. This makes me wonder why these troop types were praised- given that what Themistius is declaiming is an oration approved a priori by the consilium of Valens? Were these troops (And I am thinking of the Scola scutariorum sagittariorum in particular) standing out or newly formed here?

If this is true, then a recent article I read highlighted that Iberian exiles formed the corp of the Scola scutariorum sagittariorum and that Bacurius was the first commander of that unit. This article was suggested to me by Renatus and Diocle. It can be found here:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27...3490441553

Bacurius commanded the Scola scutariorum sagittariorum at Adrianople and was an Iberian king in exile. He later fell at the battle of the Frigidus.

Wiki describes him as follows:

Bacurius was a Roman general and a member of the royal family of Iberia (modern Georgia) mentioned by several Greco-Roman authors of the 4th and 5th centuries. It is accepted, but not universally, that all these refer to the same person, an Iberian "king" or "prince", who joined the Roman military ranks. Scholarly opinion is divided whether Bacurius can be identified with one of the kings named Bakur (Georgian: ბაკური), attested in medieval Georgian annals, who might have taken refuge in territories obtained by the Eastern Roman Empire during the Roman–Persian Wars that were fought over the Caucasus.[1]

Ammianus Marcellinus, Tyrannius Rufinus, and Zosimus report that Bacurius was "king of Iberians", but Gelasius of Caesarea does not call him king, but merely scion of the kings of Iberia. Bacurius was a tribunus sagittariorum at the Battle of Adrianople with the Goths in 378 and then served as dux Palaestinae and comes domesticorum until 394, when he became magister militum and commanded a "barbarian" contingent in Emperor Theodosius I’s (r. 379–395) campaign against the Roman usurper Eugenius and met his death, according to Zosimus, at the Battle of the Frigidus. According to Socrates of Constantinople, Bacurius had also fought in Theodosius's earlier campaign against Magnus Maximus.[2][3]

All contemporary sources are unequivocal in praising Bacurius's military skills and courage. Rufinus, whom Bacurius visited several times on the Mount of Olives and served him as a source of Iberia’s conversion to Christianity, describes the general as a pious Christian, while the rhetorician Libanius, with whom Bacurius held correspondence, evidently regards him as a pagan and praises him both as a soldier and a man of culture.[2][4]

The very next section of the Oration is a clincher:

" . . . It is not surprising that Priam called Agamemnon blessed for bringing so many Phrygian soldiers to Greece. Now in your case, there is a man who, rejecting his ancestral throne - and that of no obscure kingdom - comes as a wanderer to bear arms; a good omen of victories in the east . . ."

Heather and Matthews wonder if this is a specific reference to Bacurius and a look to future victories over the Persians in the east (that were not to happen). The article referenced above alludes to the possibility that the imperial guard cavalry unit of archers was formed specifically from Iberian and Cholchian exiles fleeing from Shapur's aggression after the collapse of Roman control over that area with Julian's death. The article argues that 2 scholae units remain unduplicated in the west under Valentinian - the archers and the clibanarii - and argues that both these guards units were design to receive Persian and Iberian exiles. If this is so, then Oration 8 throws a specific light into this period and allows us to examine the idea that Bacurius arrived with his retainers and followers - his comitatus - as the offensive against the Goths began in 368. They were incorporated into the guard regiments as a unit of specialist armoured horse archers under their prince/king in exile and honoured as a result in front of the emperor via the Oration of Themistius.

Oration 8 allows us the possibility of dating the creation of a specific elite unit under its first commander (and not the last Iberian one - later Pharasmanes and then Subarmachius, it has been argued, also commanded this unit). It bestows praise both of a unit and a few lines later a single king who we know went on to command those very archers just praised by Themistius.

I believe Themistius is deliberately linking these two comments and illustrating the glory that Valens is able to accrue under his reign and in the war against the Goths.

[AMELIANVS]

" . . .Only yesterday I saw an army better trained that any chorus (Themistius was present at Valens headquarters during the offensive of 368). Homer is obviously quite outdated in admiring Menesthenes as one fit to handle infantry and cavalry. The poet did not know the ordered movement of your phalanx, the instinctive understanding of your cavalry or those trained to live with their weapons, nor was he ever struck with joyful amazement at such a sight. He would, I believe, mock the story of the line and dove, having seen the mobile archers who, leaving the reins to their steeds, shoot more accurately than those with their feet on the ground . . ."

It is also tempting to see in this one of the first moments going towards new dominant troop Type during early Byzantine times-Roman horse archer.Interestingly also Procopios mentions Homer when he praises combat ability of horse archers of his days.

[Urselius]

There is at least one mounted archer depicted on the Arch of Constantine (second decade of 4th century), and Constantine's troops at that stage of his career would have been those quartered in the westernmost provinces of the Empire. Therefore horse-archers as such would not have been a novelty in Valens' time. What we do not have a handle on from primary sources is the genesis of the Belisarian heavy cavalry archer, who was armoured and could charge home with a lance or sword.

[Urselius]

I have just had a look at the Milvian Bridge bas relief from the Arch of Constantine, and I'm not convinced that the archer is mounted - though the stonework is badly weathered. However, Arrian mentions horse archers as part of a Roman army and he is even earlier, so my argument is still valid.

[AMELIANVS]

Yeah Im certain Roman army contained regular horse archers even much earlier but they were not praised like this nor seen as an elite soldiers.It is quite questionable when Horse archers become main offensive weapon in eastern army and certainly some important part is missing to us to know this evolution clearly.

[Nathan Ross]

I have just had a look at the Milvian Bridge bas relief from the Arch of Constantine, and I'm not convinced that the archer is mounted

It's also hard to tell because the weapons are missing, but I'm sure all the light cavalry are spearmen. The archers behind (ie above) them are on foot (and may actually be crossbowmen of some sort!)

Arrian mentions horse archers as part of a Roman army and he is even earlier, so my argument is still valid.

Certainly there had been mounted archers in the Roman auxiliary units since the first century, many with an 'eastern' identity: Ala I Augusta Ituraeorum sagittaria in Pannonia and Ala I Flavia Commagenorum sagittaria in Moesia under Trajan, for example.

It seems the archers in the oration are something different, though. Either, as suggested, they are a new guard unit formed and led by eastern exiles, or the scutariorum bit implies they are indeed armoured horse archers (or 'shield bearing', whatever this might mean). Or both, of course!

[Urselius]

By Procopius' time the Roman horse archers were contrasted to those of Persia in their tactics. Persians produced a high volume of missiles, whilst the Romans were noted for the power and accuracy of their archery. Perhaps this was connected to the Roman adoption of Hunnic bows, if such bows were first introduced in Valens' time this might account for the particular praise lavished on the mounted bowmen. It could be argued that the Caucasus region may have had contacts with the Huns and their bows before the bulk of the Roman Empire did.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Yeah Im certain Roman army contained regular horse archers even much earlier but they were not praised like this nor seen as an elite soldiers. It is quite questionable when Horse archers become main offensive weapon in eastern army and certainly some important part is missing to us to know this evolution clearly.

After the collapse of the Carpathian Hun Confederation you begin to see large number entering Eastern (rather than Western) military service. With the arrival of the new Kutrigur, Utrigur, and Onogur Huns, along with the Saragurs and Sabirs after 460's, Huns once again begin to partake in events of the Caucasus region, notably the ongoing wars with the Sassanids and Armenia from 502-533. Most of these were carried out by the Sabir Huns, but likely Onogurs and Saragurs also participated. The massive use of Hun Horse Archers was a trend that had been building up (likely thanks to the Alans and Sarmatians serving as Cataphracts and Horse Archers) over the past century, and the collapse of Attila's Domain accelerated that process.

I should note Huns beyond the Dniester were not under Attila's control.

In the Western Army you actually see the introduction of the Horse Archer and Lance-and-Bow Warfare with Aetius, which experienced huge success from 425-439. After the Fall of Africa, there wasn't enough money to maintain a field army of more than 17,000 (that doesn't count the loss of income from Gaul and Spain, or Limitanei), and the huge sucess of that style of warfare was no longer enough to be able to fight all the barbarians at once, simply due to a lack of troops.

[Longovicium]

I think Themistius, if read carefully, is clearly linking the arrival of Bacurius from Iberia with the horse archers in the previous passage. It is a propoganda exercise authorised by Valens and his consistorium and therefore, I think, is designed to flatter Bacurius and those he brought with him. Why mention the archers otherwise unless they were new or under the command of a famous person? There is no antecedent for rhetorical praise for these troops types. Their inclusion, it seems to me is because the Schola regiment has been formed from the Iberian followers that are part of Bacurius' train. He and his comtitatus are in exile and have been enrolled as a guard unit under the eye of Valens and have demonstrated mastery of mounted archery.

I find it difficult to see the rise a new type of unit being singled out otherwise.

Equites sagittarii as a general body of troops have been around for centuries (as others have pointed out). The context of the reference here and the classical framing can be read as praise and flattery. Bacurius is later explicitly linked as the commander of this unit - and two further commanders of Iberian descent can also be attested (see article referenced above).

I would be cautious of seeing in this reference the rise of the later Roman armoured archers described by Procopius but see in this, instead, a specific reference to the formation of one of the Schola guard regiments, and also an insight into Iberian fighting preferences.

Themistius is writing in Greek to a highly educated (or aspirational audience) and the Greek and Homeric references are standard tropes.