04-03-2014, 09:25 AM
Hi Adrian,
You are taking unit names and designation too literally here. Lots of late Roman unit names and designations are no literal descriptions of the nature of the troops.
Scutati did not carry only a scutum or a different one. The Sabini or the Latini were ‘named after’ the ancient tribes, no-one believes they were still drafted from still-existing tribes. The elite Scholae regiments were also a fighting bodyguard, not a training camp for young officers.
Also, I have yet to find a scholar who supports the idea that – after all – the auxiliaries of the Principate military system were still in existence after Caracalla extended the Roman citizenship to every citizen within the Empire. The word ‘auxilia’ indeed means – literally- auxiliary, but within the late Roman military system taht differed from the Principate.
The late Roman auxilia palatina (and that second word is the giveaway) were at the top of the military ranking, which in the Notitia Dignitatum gives us the system of how the units were ranked in terms of respect, pay and importance. Below the scholae we find the field army (comitatenses) with all the ‘palatina’ units first, then the regular legions, etc. etc. This alone is a huge difference from the ‘old’ auxiliary system which had the classic auxilia units ranked below the legions.
Also, we have no indication even of a drafting system which excluded non-Romans from the 'non-auxilia' units. So what, in your opinion, does 'auxilia' signify when you think they were similar to the old auxilia cohorts?
But don’t take my word for it, it’s argued by many scholars.
Quote:So, if the Roman's, including former Roman Tribunes, call troops auxiliaries then they are not actually auxiliaries?
I don’t think I have ever read a more baffling statement to be honest!
If they are not auxiliaries then Evan, what do you believe them to be? And don't quote the Notitia as that document is not entirely accurate and does not actually specify what an auxilia unit is or is not. in this context.
You are taking unit names and designation too literally here. Lots of late Roman unit names and designations are no literal descriptions of the nature of the troops.
Scutati did not carry only a scutum or a different one. The Sabini or the Latini were ‘named after’ the ancient tribes, no-one believes they were still drafted from still-existing tribes. The elite Scholae regiments were also a fighting bodyguard, not a training camp for young officers.
Also, I have yet to find a scholar who supports the idea that – after all – the auxiliaries of the Principate military system were still in existence after Caracalla extended the Roman citizenship to every citizen within the Empire. The word ‘auxilia’ indeed means – literally- auxiliary, but within the late Roman military system taht differed from the Principate.
The late Roman auxilia palatina (and that second word is the giveaway) were at the top of the military ranking, which in the Notitia Dignitatum gives us the system of how the units were ranked in terms of respect, pay and importance. Below the scholae we find the field army (comitatenses) with all the ‘palatina’ units first, then the regular legions, etc. etc. This alone is a huge difference from the ‘old’ auxiliary system which had the classic auxilia units ranked below the legions.
Also, we have no indication even of a drafting system which excluded non-Romans from the 'non-auxilia' units. So what, in your opinion, does 'auxilia' signify when you think they were similar to the old auxilia cohorts?
But don’t take my word for it, it’s argued by many scholars.
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)
