Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Notitia Dignitatum redated to AD450?
#1
I've just finished reading the new book by Anthony Kaldellis and Marion Kruse, The Field Armies of the East Roman Empire, 361-630 (CUP, 2023), which argues that the eastern section of the Notitia Dignitum, rather than dating to AD395 as traditionally believed, was in fact drafted around AD450 and reflects military organisational innovations of the 440s.

Initially I was quite skeptical of the idea, but the authors make a very good case, and by the end I was fairly convinced. Essentially their argument boils down to three central points:

1. the military titles that appear in the eastern Notitia, relating to the five main field armies, do not appear in other sources until the 440s. Instead, documents from the later 4th until the mid 5th century continue to use simpler titles, similar to those found in Ammianus Marcellinus and in the western section of the Notitia. There is no evidence for magistri in praesentalis before the mid 5th century, or of the armies they supposedly commanded.

2. the disposition of forces in the eastern Notitia, with the bulk of troops stationed in the Balkans and hinterland of Constantinople and relatively few in the east, would appear to reflect the situation in the 440s, when the eastern european provinces were threatened by Attila.

3. (most convincing, I think) there is no evidence for a large army in the eastern empire during this period; the field armies of the Notitia would easily have crushed the uprising of Gainas and repelled Uldin and the early Hunnic incursions, without the need for expensive subsidies. Instead, various barbarian and mutineer groups seem to have operated on imperial territory with virtual impunity.

In the new reconstruction of the authors, the military strength of the eastern empire remained very limited for decades after Adrianople, with barbarian foederati acting as the field armies (as Synesius suggests), in support of a small central comitatus and regional duces commanding frontier forces - essentially the old tetrarchic sytem, but with the regular units 'operating well below their paper strength... [or as] empty shells' (p.44). Only in the 440s did the eastern government cease to pay subsidies and rely on foederati, and instead rebuild the armed forces on a reformed model.

This new system, the authors suggest, itself lasted only a few decades before being superseded in the early 6th century. They have little to say, meanwhile, about the western armies, or the western Notitia, but "…in light of the arguments advanced in this book, scholars must now consider if and how the information contained in the western Notitia can be reconciled with an eastern document that reflects military arrangements around 450." (p.178)

It's a good question - I've long considered that the western Notitia is itself a grab-bag of contradictory bits of pieces from perhaps a hundred years of military development. It still includes a garrison for Britain, but seems to have been updated in some places to c.420. Snippets like the unit list in Claudian, on the other hand, suggest that parts of it might have been accurate for c.398 at least. But, if the eastern section is dated as Kaldellis and Kruse suggest, we could maybe look at three possibiities:

A. the western section also dates to c.440, and despite all the evidence in literary sources and everything else the western empire still had a large and well organised army at that time with troops stationed on Hadrian's Wall, the upper Danube and the African limes. (none too likely, I think!)

B. the western section is much older, with heaps of anachronisms, but for some reason was appended to the new revised and updated eastern Notitia.

C. the western section is not intended as a contemporary army list but rather a projection of possible future strength, based on a collection of much earlier western sources in places dating back a century. This could reflect the increasingly custodial or even proprietorial attitude of the eastern court towards the west in the 440s and onward.

I'd be interested to know if anyone has any alternative ideas, or any views on Kaldellis and Kruse's book more generally. How widely accepted is this new thesis likely to become?
Nathan Ross
Reply
#2
Glad you've posted your impressions here (and not on FB!). I recently read it also (mainly for the appendix on Adrianople) and found it persuasive. I do find the evidence cited does seem to back up the authors' conclusions and that, in turn, argues for a more nuanced re-examination of the military and economic backgrounds of the both the eastern and western halves of the empire in the 4th and 5th centuries.

My criticism is more about my own lack of the larger academic background here and that fact that (as far as I can determine) their argument remains heavily dependant upon the military history of the period and rarely seems to net in larger areas of concern to substantiate their insights. To a degree, then, the thesis remains somewhat insular and lacks a wider economic and administrative scope. Again, that is not to highlight errors in the thesis - merely to indicate a broader lack of context which may or may not support the thesis.

The more I read it the more I felt both authors were bringing up stringent and pointed concerns. Their conclusions were convincing for me but I am not aware of any academics wading in or indeed even challenging it at the moment so wonder on its impact.

I have a pdf copy but am sorely tempted to purchase a hard copy so it can sit on my bookshelf. That should tell you all you need to know about how I value it!
Francis Hagan

The Barcarii
Reply
#3
(08-26-2023, 02:08 PM)Longovicium Wrote: lack of the larger academic background


Yes, for that I suppose we'll have to keep waiting for the publication of the papers from this conference back in 2019, which seems to represent the current state of scholarly thinking. However, I notice that Kaldellis and Kruse have used the same cover image as the conference organisers, so could have crept in ahead of them!

I also wonder how the new date will throw many assumptions about the work as a whole (perhaps many of them current in 2019) into crisis. Most people, I think, have been assuming that the entire eastern half is sort of date-stamped AD395, and any little details that seem to escape that limit have been seen as anomalies. Now the whole things is a lot more open.


(08-26-2023, 02:08 PM)Longovicium Wrote: heavily dependant upon the military history of the period and rarely seems to net in larger areas of concern

The book does keep to a very narrow area - it's more of a single-issue thesis than a survey of the entire subject. 

Initially I was resistant to the new date as so many aspects of the eastern section seem so very old: the Tetrarchic or even Severan-seeming unit lists for the eastern limitanei, with all those cohorts and alae, or even the Magister per Orientem, and the units based on the Danube in the same places that they appear in Diocletianic inscriptions.

I suppose the Perge inscription, with all those rank titles that seem to date back to the Principiate, does suggest that aspects of very old military practice could survive in the eastern empire, particularly on the fringes, potentially right through to the 6th century.

Then again, I don't see anything in K & K's book that would count against the eastern ND being just as much an anachronistic muddle as the west: the balkan field army lists could have been updated to c.450, while big chunks of the rest of it (the eastern-front army lists in particular, maybe) remain marooned in the distant past.
Nathan Ross
Reply
#4
It would be interesting to see the thesis broaden out into the wider frontier listings while also examining the officia of the Magistri as listed in the ND to see if both cohere around a 440s AD date. As it stands - apart from a digression of the Aegyptian garrison - the work focuses mainly on the MM organisation and the field armies as reflective of the later 440s date and not the usual 395AD. The limitanei dispositions must therefore reflect (following the author's thesis) a 440s date which would need to be married up to surviving evidence elsewhere.

I don't necessarily think it is improbable that the revised ND lists the frontier units as they were in the 440s and not the 395 date but that supposes a strong continuity through the upheavals of the post-Adrianople devastation and long Gothic war under Theodosius. I think there could be much fruitful investigation there to back up or challenge the thesis.

The administrative staff or officia listed under the Magistri might be a fruitful area to examine as the titles and functions may (or may not) differ from the latter years of the 4th century into the mid 5th century. These might show continuity given how conservative the Roman Empire was or instead evidence a change in posts which could chart a specific period in time. For example: In addition to the units enumerated above, the Notitia gives the Magister Militum per Illyricum's staff is detailed as follows:

21.35 A chief of staff (princeps)
21.36 Two accountants (numerarii)
21.37 A custodian (commentariensis)
21.38 Chief clerks (primiscrinios) who become accountants
21.39 Clerks (scriniarios)
21.40 Secretaries (exceptores) and other attendants (apparitores)

Do these reflect 4th century titles/functions or 5th century ones - or was there no change through this period and therefore could be either?

Again, back to my observation that I lack a good academic background here!
Francis Hagan

The Barcarii
Reply
#5
(08-28-2023, 06:44 PM)Been re-reading this very thorough and insightful article of the Master of the Soldiers in the ND - https://www.notitiadignitatum.org/21a-mast.pdf Wrote: This was drafted in 2019 and revised in 2022. It analyses the ND and various laws and papyri where the role and function of the MS is presented and essentially covers the same ground as Kadellis and Kruse's work. What it doesn't do is present a thesis interpreting the role of the MS and when it became consolidated into the 5 Magister system as presented in the ND. Instead, it states very carefully that:



   
Francis Hagan

The Barcarii
Reply
#6
(08-28-2023, 06:44 PM)Longovicium Wrote: I don't necessarily think it is improbable that the revised ND lists the frontier units as they were in the 440s and not the 395 date but that supposes a strong continuity through the upheavals of the post-Adrianople devastation and long Gothic war under Theodosius.

That would have to be a very strong continuity, I'd say. Granted, the entire garrison of the limes may not have been destroyed during this period, but the fact that Theodosius was having to march troops all the way from Egypt to cobble an army together suggests he had very little Roman manpower to draw on c.380.

I suppose the Romans might simply have replaced the old limitanei establishment on exactly the same model, or something like it.


(08-28-2023, 06:44 PM)Longovicium Wrote: Do these reflect 4th century titles/functions or 5th century ones - or was there no change through this period and therefore could be either?

It would be intriguing to know, but I suspect the evidence isn't really there.

There's very little 4th-5th C evidence outside the ND itself that we could use to compare with its military arrangements either. Oddly, an inscription from the Porta Aurea in Constantinople lists three aux palatina numeri - the Primo Sagittarii, Leones Juniors and Cornuti Juniores. The first, however, is otherwise unknown while the other two appear in the western ND... [Image: shocked.png]

Trouble is, we don't know if the inscription dates to the presumed original building of the gate as a triumphal arch (c.388), the rebuilding into the main Theodosian Wall (c.405-413), the rebuilding following earthquake damage (c.448), or some other time altogether...

There were several opportunities for eastern units to be sent to the west even after 413, of course - but on its own the inscription doesn't really tell us much, except that the eastern ND isn't correct for one of three possible dates!
Nathan Ross
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Notitia Dignitatum - new discussions Robert Vermaat 4 2,980 10-11-2018, 10:06 AM
Last Post: Marcus Asprenas Fidelus
  Notitia Dignitatum Nathan Ross 10 3,888 02-01-2016, 12:00 PM
Last Post: Robert Vermaat
  Notitia Dignitatum Logarythmus 12 2,894 01-20-2015, 10:14 PM
Last Post: Renatus

Forum Jump: