Late Roman Unit Sizes

[Marcel Frederik Schwarze]

All the new numeri deployed by Justinian... were set up as numeri only without additional term like legio, cohors, auxilia.

Does it seem likely that by the 5th-6th century the distinctions between the units had been largely erased? Older units may have hung on to their titles as 'legions' or 'auxilia' for tradition and esprit de corps, despite the lack of practical difference, while newer ones lacked them entirely?

Yes, I think so. However with a small objection.
If the course of the day corresponded approximately to earlier times, then the soldiers of the old legions may still have had a better training.
The Roman drill and the labor service were very unpopular within the auxilia.
Amm. XVIII 2,6 & Veg. II 3 (at the end of the text)

On the other hand, only Romans served in the former auxiliaries in the late 5th and 6th century. Thus, there is probably no difference anymore between the numerus legionum, former auxilia palatina and new numeri.

If old procedures were still valid and respected by keeping the tradition e.g morning roll call, fencing, practicing formations, then there was maybe a small difference compared to other units. But this remains pure speculation from my side. For a long time it was believed that many soldiers in Egypt pursued a second profession.
In particular, the Papyri show that this was not the case.
So I still have some hope for our old legions.

Proc. de bellis 5,23,3: οἱ Ῥῆγες ἐνταῦθα, πεζικὸν τέλος, ἐφύλασσον καὶ Οὐρσικῖνος, ὃς αὐτῶν ἦρχε
just named Reges (Regii, an aux. palatinum)

Doesn't the ND lists the Regii as a comitatenses legion? Speidel suggested that they (as auxilia) were based on the retinue of King 'Crocus', who apparently joined Constantius I in AD306. It seems maybe more likely that they were related to the numero Regiorum Emesenorum Iudaeorum that appear at Concordia (CIL 05, 08764), in which case perhaps their unusual 'eastern' origin may have caused an early blurring of the distinction between auxilia and legion?

You could be right here.
Strictly watching at the ND the unit appears as legio in the west (Occ. V 229) and as an auxilium in the east (Or. VI 49).
Perhaps a detachment of the legion has been promoted to an auxilium? But I will take a closer look regarding the retinue of Crocus.

This reminds me of another thing in the context of my research. Ammianus calles the Iovii and Victores a legion.
(ibid XXV 6,3)
But acc. the Notitia the Iovii and Victores (iuinores, seniores etc) were all classified as auxilia palatina.

It has long time been claimed that Ammianus is wrong here.
Meanwhile, I think he knew very well what the Iovii and Victores were. Perhaps another indication for a promotion from legio to an auxilium palatinum within the decades between 360 and 420 AD.

I suspect we could think of the auxilia palatina as being something like the 'foreign legions' of France and Spain - elite units, raised initially from foreigners but increasingly composed of non-foreigners. Although we should remember Ammianus's description (31.13.8) of the Batavi at Adrianople as adventicio (foreign).

I think that most of the aux. pal. during the military service of Ammianus were still composed by foreigers. In the west perhaps far into the fifth century as well.