Final date of the Notitia

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I remember someone mentioning that one of the proposed final dates for the Notitia was 428 AD. Does anyone have a source for that (or any other dating)?

[Robert Vermaat]

And if so, that's only for the western section, the eastern being fixed c. 391.

[Nathan Ross]

one of the proposed final dates for the Notitia was 428 AD. Does anyone have a source for that...?

Looks like you're after J.B. Bury's 1920 JRS paper...

"The Notitia Orientis comes from a clean copy, prepared at Constantinople in or soon after A.D. 426... The Notitia Occidentis is derived from the working copy in use in the office of the primicerius at Rome, drawn up in A.D. 427‑8, and in use during the following decade. Thus it contains a number of corrections and additions of the years 428‑37... The troops enumerated in Not. Occ. VII represent the field forces of the west as they were at this period (428‑37), not, as is generally assumed, at the end of the fourth century."

I wonder how many subsequent scholars have accepted this idea? It seems extremely unlikely!

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Yeah it's generally accepted that both were drawn up in 395 and the western section was updated until somewhere around 425.

I believe it may have been Richardot ("La fin d'armee Romaine") who states the last update was in 428?

[Nathan Ross]

Richardot ("La fin d'armee Romaine") who states the last update was in 428?

In 1996-ish? I can't believe he would make a better case for it than Bury, and presumably draws on his work (although I haven't seen the book and can't read enough French to puzzle out the reviews online).

I suppose it's quite plausible that the western section of the ND really was composed some time between AD421 and 440, as a guide to 'reconstructing' the army, as we discussed on another thread. So the details in it would be a sort of historical compilation of all the available data on the Roman military establishment in the west for preceding decades (perhaps as far back as the mid 4th century), 'updated' with a few recent changes.

However, once the Vandals invaded again and the empire entered its last throes, this project of reconstructing the old army collapsed, and the ND remains as a sort of antiquarian record of a shadow army that never actually existed at the time, and never would again!*

* This might relate it also to the idea, held by Gibbon, Seeck, Goffart and Birley, that Vegetius was writing at the time of Valentinian III, also with an eye to the 'reconstruction' of a lost army organisation...

[Flavivs Aetivs]

No what I'm saying is that the western section was compiled in 395 and last updated in 428, while Bury says it was compiled in 428 and last updated in 437 (which I see no evidence for).

* This might relate it also to the idea, held by Gibbon, Seeck, Goffart and Birley, that Vegetius was writing at the time of Valentinian III, also with an eye to the 'reconstruction' of a lost army organisation...

I've seen this before but doubt it. Vegetius' book is dedicated to one of the Valentinians, most likely Valentinian II.

[Nathan Ross]

It's dedicated to an emperor, but we don't know which one! Theodosius I seems the prevailing view.

But why not Valentinian III? Vegetius is writing about the army 'up to the time of Gratian' (as he says at one point) - but if he was writing in the 390s plenty of people would still have had first-hand experience of Gratian's army, and wouldn't need to be informed about it... If he were writing in the 430s or so, the pre-Adrianople army of fifty or more years before would seem like some lost golden age, which is pretty much how V presents it.

Admittedly, it's a lot to hang on one phrase in the Theodosian Code, but if Valentinian III was actively engaged in trying to rebuild or reconstruct the army of his forefathers (an army which by that point had been almost entirely eclipsed in Italy at least), then an ambitious courtier like Vegetius might have sensed an ideal opening for his book of suggestions...

[Flavivs Aetivs]

But why not Valentinian III? Vegetius is writing about the army 'up to the time of Gratian' (as he says at one point) - but if he was writing in the 390s plenty of people would still have had first-hand experience of Gratian's army, and wouldn't need to be informed about it... If he were writing in the 430s or so, the pre-Adrianople army of fifty or more years before would seem like some lost golden age, which is pretty much how V presents it.

The fact he doesn't mention the sack of Rome is what most historians say dates him to before that timeframe. There are other reasons too, I do believe Dennis discusses it in his translation. I will have to look through it.

Admittedly, it's a lot to hang on one phrase in the Theodosian Code, but if Valentinian III was actively engaged in trying to rebuild or reconstruct the army of his forefathers (an army which by that point had been almost entirely eclipsed in Italy at least), then an ambitious courtier like Vegetius might have sensed an ideal opening for his book of suggestions...

Sorry, what line in the Theodosian code?

then an ambitious courtier like Vegetius might have sensed an ideal opening for his book of suggestions...

Which only makes my point that a book like this never would have been published because the court was dominated by someone who was a master of military theory, administration, logistics, and an almost undefeated commander who actually knew how the army was organized and functioned. If it was written for Valentinian III it would have had to have been written while Aetius wasn't yet in control, so prior to 429.

[Renatus]

Vegetius' book is dedicated to one of the Valentinians, most likely Valentinian II.

There is no certainty about this at all. The alleged dedication to Valentinian is held to be the work of a late copyist and different families of the text name different emperors. There is even one that names Justinian as the dedicatee. The favourites at the moment are Theodosius I and Valentinian III but I would need a lot of persuading that Vegetius wrote at any time after the fall of Rome in 410 and I am becoming increasingly doubtful that he did so after the siege of 408. I want to look into this more closely but, for the time being, I would not necessarily rule out any emperor between 383 and 410.

EDIT The last two posts slipped in while I was preparing mine but neither changes my opinion. You mention Dennis, Evan, but I think you mean Milner. Dennis translated the Strategikon.

[Nathan Ross]

The fact he doesn't mention the sack of Rome is what most historians say dates him to before that timeframe.

Vegetius doesn't directly mention any contemporary events at all - not even Adrianople. There is the note about unarmoured Roman troops fighting the Goths - although that could relate to any period from the 390s to the 420s. Milner's further inference about the generals marching a long way to fight and exhausting their troops being a reference to the battle is plausible, but not certain.

V is only interested in the distant and glorious past, not the 'debased' present - besides, he may not have wanted to remind the emperor of recent tragedies. Therefore the lack of a mention of the events of 408-410 should not rule out a later date for the composition.

Sorry, what line in the Theodosian code?

I was referring to N.Val 6, (March 20 AD440): "In accordance for our responsibility for the successful restoration of the army, We decree that the landowner must furnish recruits..."

the court was dominated by someone who was a master of military theory, administration, logistics, and an almost undefeated commander who actually knew how the army was organized and functioned.

Bearing in mind your user name this does seem rather immodest!

But this superlative person was also... in Gaul for much of the time leading his armies, no? So not actually 'dominating' the court?

*Also - Theodosius I was himself a master of military theory etc etc who commanded armies and no doubt dominated his own court, and was aided by the very capable Stilicho, who dominated Honorius - Arbogast dominated the court of Valentinian II... So in fact, if your argument is at all valid, then Valentinian III, an 'unmilitary' emperor whose 'military mastermind' was out of the picture for long periods, must be our sole contender for identification as the addressee...

[Alanus]

Gentlemen,

You'll have excuse my ignorance, being a barbarian. But if the Notitia was updated in 424, why does it contain a section on Britain? Purportedly, at least the last time I reviewed it, Britain was abandoned by Rome c. 410 or thereabouts. I would place it at around 398 roughly. However, it might be later. The Notitia gives us the Honorii in Britain; yet by the time Constantine III invaded Gaul the Honorii were with him. That might mean post 409, the mandate of logic giving a year prior to that date as a plausible time of revision... but not very probable. Sorry to interject on this subject.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Purportedly, at least the last time I reviewed it, Britain was abandoned by Rome c. 410 or thereabouts.

No it wasn't. The rescript of Honorius addresses Bruttium in South Italy but is corrupted as "Brettia" or something like that.

Archaeologial evidence says most of Britain York and South was following continental styles until 430ish and the area South of the Thames remained consistent with continental styles until the 440's or so, according to Guy Halsall. Britain was abandoned probably with the "Groans of the Britons."

But this superlative person was also... in Gaul for much of the time leading his armies, no? So not actually 'dominating' the court?

Fair enough on the other points, but this one I have to contest. Aetius oversaw the adoption of the Theodosian Code by the Imperial senate in the West. He was doing everything down to managing the supply of pigs to the city of Rome. I would certainly call that dominating...

[Alanus]

Evan,

You mean to say that just as soon as the Romans left Britain, everyone shrugged, "Hey! We don't have to wear this Roman crap anymore. Let's switch back to our Celtic duds." Guy Halsell's statement reads like an opinion, not fact.

What about Germanus? The Romans were totally gone (not mostly gone) when he visited Britain. Constantius of Lyon gives the date of Germanus crossing over to Britain and his initial tangle with the spreading Saxons as 429. Perhaps Britains were still garbed like Romans, but the Roman army had long departed.

What about Prosper of Aquitaine? He places the adventus Saxoni  in the..."fifteenth year of Arcadius and Honorius: at this time, the strength of the Romans was utterly wasted by sickness; and the provinces of Britain were laid waste by the incursion of the Saxons." That's the year 410, and within a year after Constantine III took Britain's last forces with him to Gaul. The Saxons knew when to invade, "You wait until all the disciplined soldiers are gone."

The Gallic Chronicle of 454 places the ascension of Vortigern to Britain's kingship in 425. I believe there is also an indirect reference to this in Prosper. So, even at this late date... and after a couple of decades of Britains wrangling against each other for primacy, the Romans are past history.

From all appearances (and I trust Prosper more than the Historia Augusta) the Romans were absent in Britain in 409-410; and by 429, the Island was crawling with Saxons. I'll stick with the unpopular old-fashioned date for the last Notitia revision as 395-98, roughly. The Notitia documents 5 units in Britain. As I mentioned earlier, we know Constantine III took the Honorii to Gaul with him in 409, they are mentioned frequently, and it seems improbable they were returned to Britain (after being devastated) to appear in the Notitia at a later date.


   
Additionally, I'll add this: the Notitia records 3 high commands in Britain-- the Count of Britain (a roving command), then a Big Cheese at the Wall, and finally the Count of the Saxon Shore. As for the last, the Notitia shows a drawing of the nine Saxon Shore forts. (See actual drawing, above)Archaeological dating proves these forts were abandoned several decades prior to 430. Actual a priori history and archaeology outweigh a modern author's second guessing every time.

[Renatus]

The fact he doesn't mention the sack of Rome is what most historians say dates him to before that timeframe.

Vegetius doesn't directly mention any contemporary events at all . . . he may not have wanted to remind the emperor of recent tragedies. Therefore the lack of a mention of the events of 408-410 should not rule out a later date for the composition.

It is not just a question of not mentioning unpalatable events. To Vegetius, Rome was the inviolate city that had resisted sieges. He could not get away with that if it were known that it had fallen to the Goths in 410. Compare his attitude to that of St Jerome, who referred to the whole world dying in one city. Besides, Vegetius was highlighting the inadequacy of the contemporary army. The fact that it could not even protect the mother city would have reinforced his argument a hundred-fold. However, I think that we are drifting somewhat off-topic.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

You mean to say that just as soon as the Romans left Britain, everyone shrugged, "Hey! We don't have to wear this Roman crap anymore. Let's switch back to our Celtic duds." Guy Halsell's statement reads like an opinion, not fact.

No, I said that as Roman control decayed areas outside of control were no longer influenced by the Romans on the continent, which is preserved in the archaeological record.

As for the army in Britain, there were 20,000 men stationed in Britain after the Comes Britanniarum command was combined into the Gallic field army. Trust me, Roman control of Britain did not end in one night. That's a myth.

From all appearances (and I trust Prosper more than the Historia Augusta) the Romans were absent in Britain in 409-410; and by 429, the Island was crawling with Saxons. I'll stick with the unpopular old-fashioned date for the last Notitia revision as 395-98, roughly. The Notitia documents 5 units in Britain.

No, Germanus' campaign and the Battle of Mold was against the Picts. It's mentioned that the british forces were not well equipped and that Germanus reorganized them "According to a new model," or something of the like.

The Notitia lists almost 50 units in Britain, not 5.

Archaeological dating proves these forts were abandoned several decades prior to 430. Actual a priori history and archaeology outweigh a modern author's second guessing every time.

Richborough (Rutupii on that list) has several Romano-British finds some of which date into the mid-5th century.





Distribution map of military objects in the first half of the 5th century.



Taken from: http://www.fectio.org.uk/articles/hwb/hw...igures.htm

Furthermore, if the Late Romans had abandoned Britain, then how did a Hunnish Buckle make it to the Traprain Law burial which dates to the range of 420-425 AD, in Scotland?