Late Roman Unit Sizes

[Marcel Frederik Schwarze]

In the next years until the time of Heraclius we find papyri calling the old units "numerus legionum" (αριθμος τον λεγεονων) or "numerus coortis".

Aha, fantastic! I've been wondering for a while whether such a term might have existed - I guessed something like numerus legionis - but even if it wasn't used earlier (because unnecessary?) it proves that the late Romans could and did distinuish between different types of numeri. Perhaps we could also assume the existence of a numerus auxilium, besides the numerus equitum mentioned in the inscription I quoted before?

Hi Nathan,
I put another one on top :-)
the numerus vexillationis Ombos
P.Laur. 3 111, Antinoopolis, 575-599 AD: ἀριθμοῦ οὐιξιλλατίονος Ὄμβων

And yet. After looking at all the evidence, this term appears to have only a traditional meaning like all the others. It cannot otherwise be explained that all new numeri were "only" called numeri (+cityname or name of the emperor or name of the tribe).
All the new numeri deployed by Justinian (especially in Egypt and the Pentapolis), or by Tiberius (and his Tiberiaci) etc. were set up as numeri only without additional term like legio, cohors, auxilia. If those designations were still valid (to a certain degree) I would expect at least some new legions - which is not the case. Especially Justinian was very backward looking.

I do not reject a superior position of an old legion in a 6th century field battle.
But it has probably different reasons. I strongly believe that these ancient legions maintained a high degree of discipline, I still believe that special formations were practiced, and Papyri show clearly that the internal order was still strictly oriented to the past - which is in my opinion no disadvantage. To this extent, the old legions may indeed have provided an interesting offer for a military campaign and its commander.

But according the Notitia Dignitatum the "flower" of the army was the auxilia palatina. In all lists, they are named first. The reasons are debatable, and not my point now.
But meanwhile (late 5th + 6th century), they are also completely integrated into the structure of the numeri.And much more. The term Auxilia has completely disappeared.

P.Paramone 15, 592–593 AD: ἀριθμῷ τῶν καθωσιωμένων Θεοδοσιακῶν Ἰ̣σαύρων (only an arithmos)
= Felices Theodosiaci Isauri in Alexandria, acc. ND Or. V 25 and 66 an auxilia Palatina serving under the MMP1

We know many names of officers and recruits in Egypt of former auxiliae in the late 5th and 6th centuries. All have Roman or Graeco-Roman names - and were mostly locally recruited . In this case the old difference on a cultural basis no longer exists. That an old Auxilia unit maintained certain traditions is probable. But are these so comprehensive?
Mommsen and Robert Grosse explained that the catastrophic events in the West were an important indication and warning signal to the Eastern Empire. On top of that there was the Civil War with the Isaurians under Anastasius. Was this a reason for the Romanization of the old auxilia and other troops or for reducing foreigners in the army in general? Or does it have something to do with the fact that units have been stationed in one place for a long time, and reinforcements were added by Romans - a stepwise procedure so to speak? Who knows...

The fact remains that the name "auxilia" was taken from this units.
Proc. de bellis 5,23,3: οἱ Ῥῆγες ἐνταῦθα, πεζικὸν τέλος, ἐφύλασσον καὶ Οὐρσικῖνος, ὃς αὐτῶν ἦρχε
just named Reges (Regii, an aux. palatinum)

P. Ital.16 +/-600AD, Ravenna: Iohanni viri clarissimi, primicerii numerii felicum Theodosiaci
probably Aux. Pal. see ND Or. V 62 serving under the MMP2: Felices Theodosiani

CIL V 8280, early 6th century: de num(ero) Zal(iorum) qui bixit annis
Zal(iorum) = Saliorum? = Salii. compare ND Or. V 51 auxilia pal. serving under the MMP1

[...]

Beside the drungus/globus (an undefined small tactical body) and the scholae, the only tactical units which can be observed beside the numeri are the ιλαις ιππεων (alae equites) - the latter one just in ancient literature e.g.
Evagrius, Hist. eccl. V 15: ἑκατὸν χιλιάδων ἴλας ἱππέων ἀρίστων ἐγκαταστήσασθαι

Within the century turn (5th to 6th) there is an interesting inscription in Tomis.
SEG 28, 626: σαγιτταρίον τῖς τῆς ειʹ [ιεʹ] πολεμαρχικῆς [πολεμικῆς] ἴλης.  
An ala of sagittarii

Some years before in AE 1976, 0617 (also Tomis): filius Gaion(a?)e annor(um) viginti cinque militans inter sagittar(io)s iuniores
...without any ala or something else.

Possible that the term ἴλη is interchangeable with ἱππέων (equites in the meaning of cavalry in general) or a cavalry-bandum (βανδων). Perhaps the Ala has indeed survived. I mean I can find a lot of those 6th-century alae. But a general pattern is not visible at the moment.