Late Roman Unit Sizes

[Renatus]

Adrian wrote:
Its clear in one instance that it meant troops taking off their armour and just relying on their shields to defend themselves.

Why would they take off their armour to defend themselves? Isn’t the point of armour to is to protect?

Adrian is probably thinking of Zosimus 4.25.2-3, in which a Roman force under a commander named Modares launched a night attack on a band of drunken Goths, catching them unawares and slaughtering them. In Zosimus' words, " . . . he quietly ordered his men, armed only with swords and shields and disdaining heavier armour, to abandon the usual fighting in close order and attack the barbarians while they were paralysed by their indulgences" (Ridley's translation). No doubt, they dispensed with armour in the interests of speed and silence.

[ValentinianVictrix]

That one Michael and also when troops swam across the Rhine on their shields during Julian's campaign in Gaul. I think the troops Gratian sent up the mountains to tackle the lentienses also dispensed with their armour.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The Late Roman army is still fighting with missiles and swords.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Hypothetically, if I decided to define the units of the Lanciarii and Mattiarii as light armed infantry, could I get away with calling the heavy infantry scutati?

The term Skoutatoi was the same as Comitatenses AKAIK.

Its not clear if the Legiones has integral skirmishers attached, but I would say they did. The Notitia lists several units whose titles imply they were skirmishers, so they could be separate. Troops who were detached as expediti were expected to travel fast or swim across rivers, or climb mountains, and all troop types could be detached in this manner, cavalry, legionaries and auxilia. This is a good example of how versatile the Late Roman army had become.

The Strategikon of Maurice would imply that each unit had it's own division of Lanciarii.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Evan, what are the Lanciarii called in the original Greek text of the Strategikon?

[Macedon]

Evan, what are the Lanciarii called in the original Greek text of the Strategikon?

I do not think there is any mention of lanciarii (or any alternative spelling of the term) in the Strategikon. As a term it is very rare in Greek but I have seen it being given as javeliner in Lydus.

Of course the lance javelin would also be used by heavy infantry too, so even that would not be sufficient...

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Evan, what are the Lanciarii called in the original Greek text of the Strategikon?

I was referring to that Pseudo-Mauricius mentions that in the Legion of the Strategikon the troops in a unit are divided into Heavy infantry in the front and lighter infantry in the back with the purpose of throwing missiles overhead.

Of course the lance javelin would also be used by heavy infantry too, so even that would not be sufficient...

Lanciarius comes from Lancaea, a light leaf-bladed javelin about 3-4 foot in length. The term also referred to the Verrutum, a light javelin with a three-sided pyramidal head.

The Heavy Javelin/Spear the Infantry (sometimes) used was the Spiculum, but this wasn't assigned to any particular grade of unit. Some units used it, others didn't. Most probably used spears and darts or spears and light javelins.

[Nathan Ross]

[My latest number crunching is leading me to believe a numerus or numerii (excuse my bad Latin or lack of it), is a body of men selected from the various units in the army.

It's possible that a mixed detachment could be referred to as a numerus, but the term more usually connotes an individual unit - some auxilia units being actually called by that name, for example the numerus batavorum and numerus mattiacorum that appear on the Concordia inscriptions.

It states that the targeteers are scutarii. Hmm, is there anyone I can trust?

As Adrian says, 'targeteers' is a bit of silly antiquarianism on the part of translator Rolfe (whose version appears on the Lacus Curtius site). Walter Hamilton's 1986 Penguin translation uses the correct scutarii, although still talks about the 'first division' of the unit! Many times I have wished that translators would drop the daft habit of trying to gloss Roman military terms into 'modern' English - or, still worse, into outdated English, which just confuses everybody. A 'targeteer' was a type of 16th-century Scottish swordsman, I believe...

The correct term is scutarii, as found in Ammianus (e.g. XXVI.4 - scholae primae Scutariorum), and as Adrian further says, was a unit of the guard, probably cavalry.

[antiochus]

Nathan wrote:
It's possible that a mixed detachment could be referred to as a numerus, but the term more usually connotes an individual unit - some auxilia units being actually called by that name, for example the numerus batavorum and numerus mattiacorum that appear on the Concordia inscriptions.

Thanks for that. I will keep that in mind.

Nathan Ross wrote:
The correct term is scutarii, as found in Ammianus (e.g. XXVI.4 - scholae primae Scutariorum), and as Adrian further says, was a unit of the guard, probably cavalry.

Now I’m getting confused. As you stated the correct translation for targeteers should be scutarii, but now it’s a unit of guard, probably cavalry. Here is the number of references of targeteers taken from the Rolfe’s translation.

Ammianus Targeteers (14 7 9), (14 10), (14 11 11 - tribune of the targeteers), (15 4 8), (16 4 1), (16 11 6), (16 12 2), (17 10 5 - tribune of the targeteers), (19 11 16 - tribune of the targeteers), (20 2 5 - tribune of the targeteers), (20 2 3 targeteers most active), (20 13 13), (21 11 1), (22 11 1 second corps of targeteers), (25 10 8 second division of targeteers), (26 1 4 tribune of the first division of the targeteers; second division of the targeteers), (30 1 11 tribune of targeteers with 1000 archers), (31 8 9 tribune of the targeteers), (31 12 16 archers and targeteers).

Most of the above would apply to infantry, not cavalry. I suspect the above are all light-armed infantry. At present I have finished my research on the size and organisation of the legion and the cavalry so now I am concentrating on the composition of the troops within a legion.

[antiochus]

Evan wrote:
The Strategikon of Maurice would imply that each unit had it's own division of Lanciarii.

This is my conclusion with the Late Roman legion. A percentage of the troops are Lanaciarii and I believe the Lanciarii are missile armed infantry that engage in missile combat and also close combat, like the old hastati.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Steven, the Scutarii were not infantry, many of the quotes you give you need to check the Latin text as well as then you may get a different reading from Rolfe's translation. I have no idea why Rolfe keeps calling the Scutarii 'targeteers', the best translation would be 'shield-bearers' in my opinion. The Scutarii were an elite Guard cavalry unit, some historians believe they were 'light cavalry', although I'm not entirely sure why.

Personally I think your wrong about the Late Roman legiones containing Lanciarii, there is no mention of Legionary Lanciarii that I can think off apart from the Legion of that name. When skirmishers are mentioned they are invariable called Velites by Ammianus or Psiloi by Julian, and Libanius I believe. Even Velites were known to be sent off on special tasks and then Ammianus called them Velites expediti.

If you want some indication of what light troops were attached to the legion then I think Vegetius, for all his faults, is probably a good place to start as he does at least call them by their contemporary names.

[Nathan Ross]

Here is the number of references of targeteers taken from the Rolfe’s translation. ... Most of the above would apply to infantry, not cavalry.

All translations have their irritations - the Penguin version by Hamilton has been so heavily abridged that most of your references are missing from it! Nevertheless, if you check through them I think you'll find that most of the references are to officers - usually tribunes - of the scholae scutariorum. These were guards officers, and thus high ranking men, and it appears that on occasion they were given field commands that included troops other than the scutarii alone (30,1,11 for example).

The reference in 31,12,16 is to a sudden impetuous attack by sagittari et scutarii commanded by Cassio and Bacurius; the archers in this case, I think, would be mounted men, perhaps also guard - this article identifies them as the schola scutariorum sagittariorum - and it was a cavalry attack.

I have no idea why Rolfe keeps calling the Scutarii 'targeteers', the best translation would be 'shield-bearers' in my opinion.

A 'target' or 'targe' was a small round shield, used in combination with a sword - as described here. Why Rolfe thinks this is a decent translation for scutum is anybody's guess... :dizzy:

there is no mention of Legionary Lanciarii that I can think off apart from the Legion of that name.

The legionary lanciarii were perhaps an innovation of the Severan era - they turn up in Legio II Parthica, and are mentioned a few times during the third century. By the tetrarchy there seems to have been a corps of lanciarii attached to the imperial comitatus (Aurelius Gaius served with them, if I recall correctly). The notion that these lanciarii, detached from their original legions, later formed the palatine legion of the Lanciarii is tempting, but unproven. As you've said, late Roman unit titles were not perhaps as obvious as they might appear...!

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Steven, the Scutarii were not infantry, many of the quotes you give you need to check the Latin text as well as then you may get a different reading from Rolfe's translation. I have no idea why Rolfe keeps calling the Scutarii 'targeteers', the best translation would be 'shield-bearers' in my opinion. The Scutarii were an elite Guard cavalry unit, some historians believe they were 'light cavalry', although I'm not entirely sure why.

AFAIK I have always known it to be "Shield Bearers" but the Scutarii AFAIK were not an Elite Guard unit other than the specific part of the Schola Palatina called Scutarii. Equites Scutarii are posted throughout the Empire as both Limitanei and Comitatensian Cavalry.

The legionary lanciarii were perhaps an innovation of the Severan era - they turn up in Legio II Parthica, and are mentioned a few times during the third century. By the tetrarchy there seems to have been a corps of lanciarii attached to the imperial comitatus (Aurelius Gaius served with them, if I recall correctly). The notion that these lanciarii, detached from their original legions, later formed the palatine legion of the Lanciarii is tempting, but unproven. As you've said, late Roman unit titles were not perhaps as obvious as they might appear...!

And don't forget II Traiana in 298-304 had Lanciarii Vexillationes in Egypt. The Panopolis Papyrii are amazing.

[ValentinianVictrix]

'AFAIK I have always known it to be "Shield Bearers" but the Scutarii AFAIK were not an Elite Guard unit other than the specific part of the Schola Palatina called Scutarii. Equites Scutarii are posted throughout the Empire as both Limitanei and Comitatensian Cavalry.'

It's my view that Ammianus would not continually mention the Scutarii unless there was something significant about that unit, which being a unit of the Scholae would place them as such. The Scholae were higher status than the other cavalry units as they appear in their own page in the Notitia. The same goes for the Sagittarii who are also mentioned a fair few times by Ammianus.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I said that the only elite unit of Scutarii was the Schola Palatina Scutariorum.

Just when I quoted you it sounded like you were referring to the Scutarii in general.

[Renatus]

Hypothetically, if I decided to define the units of the Lanciarii and Mattiarii as light armed infantry, could I get away with calling the heavy infantry scutati?

I think so, yes. That is the sense in which I read Vegetius' use of the term. I would be careful about categorising the Mattiarii as light infantry, although their association with the Lanciarii suggests as much. We don't know what the mattium was, as far as I am aware. Personally, I do not think that it is the same as the mattiobarbulis but others may disagree.

I do not run with your idea of the Lanciarii fighting at close-quarters like the old hastati. Depictions of lanciarii on tombstones show them holding a clutch of javelins, which suggests to me that their role was to stand back and put down a barrage of missiles over the heads of the line infantry. Scutati seems much more descriptive of troops fighting in the line.