Notitia Dignitatum units

[P. Lilius Frugius Simius]

ave.

(in my Visigoths novel) I have a character serving in Valens Augustus army near Antioch.

He's a centurio-like sub-officer, probably a praepositus (if I've understood well). When thinking about which unit would he be serving, I picked up the Equites scutarii Illyriciani, Serianae from the Notitia Dignitatum.

But I have so many doubts, it got me thinking. There seems to be a great disparity in units naming in the N. D., where some places get called "cohors such" and others, however, get the "palatinae senior" kind of naming. Same goes for the vexillationes, some are straight "clibanarii such and such" while other simply say "equites scutarii" or "sagittarii"...

Is there any place where a carefl study og the N. D. is done, in terms of what's what in each Diocesis?

And, down to the dirt, would the "Eq. scut. Illy., Serianae" be a 500 horse spear knights unit? Would a praepositus be a kind of centurio, or is there an equivalent to the early ala decurio in the late units?

multae gratiae

[aitor iriarte]

David,
I haven't got enough information to answer your main question but the praepositus would be the officer in command of the whole unit, not a centurio. The ancient equivalent for it (still in use on some of the Notitia units) would be 'tribunus'.

Saludos,

Aitor

[D B Campbell]

Would a praepositus be a kind of centurio ..?

I don't think so. The term is usually found describing an officer who has been put in charge of a detachment. The Panopolis papyri of AD 298 mention praepositi in charge of legionary detachments and, in one case, a unit of equites promoti detached from II Traiana.
Your entire unit of equites was probably commanded by a tribune. For his under-officers, there's a whole sequence of late army ranks which escape my memory just now -- maybe someone else can oblige? (primicerius rings a bell ...)

Would the "Eq. scut. Illy., Serianae" be a 500 horse spear knights unit?

$64,000 question, David. Cavalry vexillations probably had a theoretical strength of 500 -- certainly, that's the figure recorded by Johannes Lydus (De Mag. 1.46; reign of Justinian). And Zosimus mentions "an ala of 600 horsemen" (Zos. 3.3). But Ammianus mentions "horsemen from two troops [numbering] around 700" (Amm. Marc. 18.8: duarum turmarum equites circiter septingenti ad subsidium Mesopotamiae recens ex Illyrico missi). (Interestingly, the late source Johannes Malalas uses the term "turma" for a cavalry unit of 500 men.)

I have drawn some of this information from T. Coello, Unit Sizes in the Late Roman Army (Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, 1996 = BAR-S645).

[Robert Vermaat]

But I have so many doubts, it got me thinking. There seems to be a great disparity in units naming in the N. D., where some places get called "cohors such" and others, however, get the "palatinae senior" kind of naming. Same goes for the vexillationes, some are straight "clibanarii such and such" while other simply say "equites scutarii" or "sagittarii"...

Is there any place where a carefl study og the N. D. is done, in terms of what's what in each Diocesis?

Well, Hoffmann would be best for that, but he'wrote in German.
Don't worry about alae and cunei existing next to each other, that no doubt happened quite a lot. Cohorts weren't re-named at some point, it wasn't a fashion thing.

[P. Lilius Frugius Simius]

All,

thanks for your replies!

Summing up, so far:

In late IV and early V Centuries (to limit things a bit), at the times the N. D. was written, there were a wealth of old named legions and such, and newly formed ones, without so much of a normalization into them. From the N. D. we find that, in the AEgypt "county", the comes rei militari had units that were named thus:

Legio tertiadecima gemina, sited at Babilona.

Which had: Equites stablesiani, in Pelusio.

We also find: Legio secunda Traiana, at Parembolus.

which had Ala Theodosiana nuper constituta.

and Ala quinta Praelectorum, at Dionisiada, which had Cohors tertia Galatarum, at Cefrus.

We also find out units called: Cuneus equitum Maurorum scutariorum (cavalry), Equites sagittarii indigenae (cavalry), Milites Miliarenses (infantry), Praefectus ripae legionis primae Ioviae cohortis (I love this one :-) ) ), Auxiliares Novenses (presumably auxiliary infantry)...

Some of these were limitanei, (or ripenses; usually under the wing of a dux) and others formed part of the mobile armies (usually under the command of a comes, or under the direct command of the Emperor or a designated magister militum, praesentales, palatinae, etc...)

Limitanei armies would be bigger and have more cavalry (because it would be easier to feed them and more effective to defend a bigger chunk of the limes) (maybe 2,000-3,000 infantry and 1,000-2,000 cavalry (?) but probably dispersed through several forts along the limes).

Mobile armies would be composed of smaller units, about 1,000-1,2000 men and some 600 cavalry, (nominal numbers).

An army would be under the command of a magister > praefectus > comes > dux (in order of power) and a legion would be under the command of a tribunus, while different sections of those legions or vexillationes would be under the command of a praepositus or other similar ranks.

So far, so good?

Thanks a bunch!

[Tib. Gabinius]

To answer it Hoffmann isnt the best source for that, cause his both books also have some years more and arent complete, like he mentioned himself.
He just reconstructed some charges in the part of the grave field.

Demandt would be a better base.
Both agree in: the praepositus was first a not clear definated position to lead the new types of troops and vexilla and become after this a regular part of the "new cursus honorum". Like aitor said hes a kind of tribun, but not exactly.
You ll have to devide the charges of the new types of troops esp. the vexilla and equitanien and the regular troops build out of legions.
In the regular infanteristic there is still a centurio like also the decurio in cav.survived.

The name ripenses where used of Constantinus and developed into "limitanei" or "pseudo-comitatenses", which isnt clear to seperat at all.

You ll have to seperate also the former men around the emperor, the comes, which spend the name "comitatenses" to the regular field units, while the palatini where the real "guard" after their appearence, and they have some own ranks as well, while protectores and domestici in numbers of 500 were real close to the emperor.

In times of the notitia you can calculate an army of combined east and west of 540 000 till 600 000 men in limitanei, comitatenses, palatini and marines.


You cant say that the limitanei have more cav. Many units on horse, like the palatini auxili equ. or the cataphractarii didnt belong to the limitanei.


The names were often an evolution out of their former units, but same often the units were complete new, than they were often devided into to parts, one mostly depend on west, other on east, and get the names "iunores" and "seniores", which didnt ment they were "young" or less worth, but a fact to devide them on the list.

Sometimes the name survived, like the Minervii seem to be the development out of the Legio I (flavia) MINERVIA pf but thats not the fact for all, like i tried to say before.

Hope i could help even if my english is worse

[Robert Vermaat]

To answer it Hoffmann isnt the best source for that, cause his both books also have some years more and arent complete, like he mentioned himself.
He just reconstructed some charges in the part of the grave field.

Sure, Hoffmann's book is over 35 years old now, but I think it's still the largest in-deth study of the Late Roman field army. Of course there have been discoveries since, and it remains his opinion.

Demandt would be a better base.

Which one?

The name ripenses where used of Constantinus and developed into "limitanei" or "pseudo-comitatenses", which isnt clear to seperat at all.

Ripenses was a name for troops defending riverine frontiers. Later these troops were also known as limitanei. Pseudocomitatenses are stricktly limitanei units promoted to the ranks of the field army (but with a lower status).

You ll have to seperate also the former men around the emperor, the comes, which spend the name "comitatenses" to the regular field units, while the palatini where the real "guard" after their appearence, and they have some own ranks as well, while protectores and domestici in numbers of 500 were real close to the emperor.

True, but protectores and domestici are developed a lot later than the scholae and palatini.

You cant say that the limitanei have more cav. Many units on horse, like the palatini auxili equ. or the cataphractarii didnt belong to the limitanei.

I disagree. Some units of cataphracti belong to the limitanei: Dux Britanniarum: Praefectus equitum catafractariorum.

The names were often an evolution out of their former units, but same often the units were complete new, than they were often devided into to parts, one mostly depend on west, other on east, and get the names "iunores" and "seniores", which didnt ment they were "young" or less worth, but a fact to devide them on the list.

I agree, but in my opinion the regional stationing does play a part. I think Hofmann made a good case for seniores units originally belonging to the West and iuniores to the East, although I disagree with Hofmann about the time and reason for the split. And some units seem to be newly created with a iuniores or seniores suffix.

[P. Lilius Frugius Simius]

P. Lilio Ti. Gabinio sal.

aue

thank you for your comments, they are very clear and helpful.

Just a note, when I say the limitanei had more cavalry, I am basing myself in several facts from multiple sources, many of them in the RAT archives:

a) limites troops would have easier access to food and water sources necessary to feed horses, and to maintain a bigger number of them, than any mobile force, which would strain the towns it passed through. This doesn't mean they were able to put lots more cavalry forces on the battle line than the comitatenses armies, but that they'd be able to have more horses (for replacement, etc...)

b) horses spreaded along the limes would be a 'fast first line' defense, able to respond to an enemy incursion before it got too deep into the Empire, or able to chase them in their way back to their territories,

c) cavalry was not significantly faster than infantry after a few days' march, and even slower after a week or so, therefore a mobile army with big numbers of cavalry would basically be as fast as an infantry army (plus recruiting auxiliary cavalry from native forces, like several units in the N.D. show, and C. Iulius Caesar used to do in Gaul, for example), and consume lots more water and food, where at the battle line, horses would be tired and therefore any cavalry unit would be dubiously reliable,

d) most elite units are usually smaller in numbers than the regular ones, because sometimes you are forced to compensate lack of ability with numbers, and smaller means easier to move, to command, to conceal, and so on... Thus, palatinae equites, and kataphractarii and klibanarii units would be the best on the mobile armies, but smaller than the probably lighter units in the limitanei...

e) we know that many limitanei legions were spreaded through several separated forts along the limes. If the limitanei vexillationes were similarly spreaded out, they should be bigger in order to provide big enough detachments for them to be any utility at all in case of a border battle. Most of the Roman limes was constantly harassed by Peoples with very good cavalry (East by Sassanid Persians, Saracens, Arabs and Parthians, NorthEast by Sarmatians, Alans, and Huns; NorthWest by Alans (Iranian) and Franks, Vandals, Suebi, Alamanni, Quadi, Marcomanni, and other Germanic tribes, which had an important amount of Nobility using excellent horse breeds, alongside their infantry; in the SouthWest, Bereberes and other African groups (Numids, etc) which were basically light cavalry forces).

Having big enough cavalry numbers to be effective against attacks launched by any of these enemies would make all the sense, we know of many battles that found the infantry locked shield-to-shield when the winning cavalry 'ala' returns and routs the losing side, even if this side was just about to win the infantry battle.

However, I cannot provide definitive, documentary proof of these supositions, based on what I am learning from reliable sources in RAT, authors, etc...

Anyway, I've got enough material to keep going for a while, thank you very much!

uale

PS- your English looks good enough to me, but then it's also a second language to me, there are errors I am not aware I am making (save typos)... :-) )

[Tib. Gabinius]

To answer it Hoffmann isnt the best source for that, cause his both books also have some years more and arent complete, like he mentioned himself.
He just reconstructed some charges in the part of the grave field.

Sure, Hoffmann's book is over 35 years old now, but I think it's still the largest in-deth study of the Late Roman field army. Of course there have been discoveries since, and it remains his opinion.

Demandt would be a better base.

Which one?

He offered some of his work in "Die Spätantike", also the military overview is somewhat short and you ll have to read the whole book carefully to get all the informations.

The name ripenses where used of Constantinus and developed into "limitanei" or "pseudo-comitatenses", which isnt clear to seperat at all.

Ripenses was a name for troops defending riverine frontiers. Later these troops were also known as limitanei. Pseudocomitatenses are stricktly limitanei units promoted to the ranks of the field army (but with a lower status).

I didnt said something other, did i?

You ll have to seperate also the former men around the emperor, the comes, which spend the name "comitatenses" to the regular field units, while the palatini where the real "guard" after their appearence, and they have some own ranks as well, while protectores and domestici in numbers of 500 were real close to the emperor.

True, but protectores and domestici are developed a lot later than the scholae and palatini.

Thats right, but i just wanted to mention the differences between all these "guarding"

You cant say that the limitanei have more cav. Many units on horse, like the palatini auxili equ. or the cataphractarii didnt belong to the limitanei.

I disagree. Some units of cataphracti belong to the limitanei: Dux Britanniarum: Praefectus equitum catafractariorum.

And even Hoffmann reported that they were, with a high grad of possibility, identic or the "mother" unit of the other, in the deeper gallic and in the battle of Strassbourg mentioned cat., so the mention in the nototia isnt a messurement for the mass of cav. in late army parts only.

The names were often an evolution out of their former units, but same often the units were complete new, than they were often devided into to parts, one mostly depend on west, other on east, and get the names "iunores" and "seniores", which didnt ment they were "young" or less worth, but a fact to devide them on the list.

I agree, but in my opinion the regional stationing does play a part. I think Hofmann made a good case for seniores units originally belonging to the West and iuniores to the East, although I disagree with Hofmann about the time and reason for the split. And some units seem to be newly created with a iuniores or seniores suffix.

[/Quote]
If i remember right he mentioned this facts also, and let this at all take part in his thinking about the combinatin of two troops.