02-16-2007, 07:06 PM
I must add to the above statement, Hoffmann's arguments when capmpared to Scharf and Kulikowski.
Nicasie has written on the matter, which I'm reading now, and Drew-Bear also comes into play.
Iuniores, orginally, seeems to have been regarded as 'recruits'. Speidel found a 3rd c. inscription referring Mauri iuniores, but Nicasie does not regard that as anything other than rwewferring to recruits.
That there was a big army division in 364 is certain. We can now argue how the army was divided: splitting each unit in two (as Hoffmann thinks) or dividing all the units (as Nicasie thinks)?
While I'm not convinced by Hoffmann, I'm so far less convinced by other theories. If all units had already been divided into seniores-iuniores in the 350s, we can wonder why they still seem to end up in eastern or western armies, but not both versions in both armies more than they did.
Nicasie has written on the matter, which I'm reading now, and Drew-Bear also comes into play.
Iuniores, orginally, seeems to have been regarded as 'recruits'. Speidel found a 3rd c. inscription referring Mauri iuniores, but Nicasie does not regard that as anything other than rwewferring to recruits.
That there was a big army division in 364 is certain. We can now argue how the army was divided: splitting each unit in two (as Hoffmann thinks) or dividing all the units (as Nicasie thinks)?
While I'm not convinced by Hoffmann, I'm so far less convinced by other theories. If all units had already been divided into seniores-iuniores in the 350s, we can wonder why they still seem to end up in eastern or western armies, but not both versions in both armies more than they did.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)