Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Late Roman Army - seniores and iuniores
#15
Hi Jens,
I've used the past week to read a bit about this problem, and it seems we a gree on much. I must also say that while (like you) I reject several of Hoffmann's solutions, I'm also not much impressed by the solutions of the others.

Quote:I agree with you and Hoffmann that in 364 there was an army partition. But how it was parted still stands open to question.
Absolutely. Other suggestions are the aftermath of battle of Mursa (351) or other occasions, but the problem there is that no sources mention any such division, apart from the one in 364. So it seems we're on safe ground there. The next question would be of course: was the army split into iuniores and seniores, or just divided. Nicasie thinks the latter applied, but he can't come up with a moment when the splitup actuall took place before that time. But more of that below.

Quote:1. problem:
what does iuniores-seniores mean? you already mentioned that question is still unsolved.
I agree. Nicasie mentions several references to inioures though, that go back to Diocletian and before, where iuniores have the meaning of 'recruits'. The only occasion where emperors are metioned as 'Senior/Iunior' (Hoffmann's solution) are two shortlived 3rd-c. emperors, which does not impress NIcasie, am me neither.

So what could we infer? How about a proposal where a late Roman army unit had some internal division into a seniores and iuniores part? The iuniores could be the newer soldiers, while the seniores could be more like the veterans - maybe this could be something having to do with status and/or pay? If such a unit was split up into two half-units or divided and built up to double strenght (I can't be sure which was the occasion), such an internal division could be the natural division that caused to two new independent units to be named thus.
Just a hypothesis.

Quote:2. problem:
seniores-iuniores appear before 364, outside of the notitia we have very few datable unit-designations even after that date - so why suppose that all (Hoffmann) or most of seniores-iuniores should be created in that date? Why couldn't it be the usual practice to designate newly created units out of older cadres, happening all the time or in moments of army rebuilding?
Yes, that's a problem that we will just not get hold of. That such a division occured before 364 is clear. However, we can't tell how many (just a few or many) units had actually been divided before 364. As I said above, Nicasie sees the divion happening a lot sooner (Constantine), others look for moments like Mursa. the trouble is, we have no evidence of one big division before 364. So, such divisions happened (that much is clea), but without much references, I'm inclined to think that while this happened, it had not happened on a large scale. After all, larger old-style legions also occurred, as did cohorts and alae - the Roman Army never reorganised all units into a new model army, and new developments seem to have taken place occasionally, when circumstances called for the, Legions were haved, sometimes divided into double-cohort forces, somtimes even split up in as many cohorts as they still had.

Before and after 364, I don't think that iuniores needed to be in the East and seniores needed to be in the West. Hoffmann is wrong there, lacking the earlier references as he obviously did.
That we have such a regional division and a army division, makes me think that for this one, very big, occasion, the units were indeed divided along such lines, iuniores being either split up seniores or created out of cadres (that I can't be sure of).
I therefore think that most seniores/iuniores were created in 364, because that west-east division seems also to take place just then.

Quote: 3. It could be possible that in 364 ALREADY EXISTING seniores-iuniores (and maybe newly created) were parted in the way that former went with Valentinian, last with Valens.
Yes, that was Nicasie's solution. He attributed the seniores/iuniores split to Constantine, but without any proof. if Constantine was indeed responcible for the new army, i think it's a bit much to also attribute the division of those units to Constantine.
Mursa, then? The problem is and will be - no sources mention such an army division before 364, it's out best bet.
But were just all the units divided between valens and Valentinian? Very much possible. But then, I'd say, why don't we find many many more references to iuniores and seniores before 364?

Quote: 4. As far as I know (please proof me wrong), I haven't found a thorough explanation for the sheer unbelievable unit-augmentation during 4/5th century. Hoffmann, Scharf and Speidel speak of one wave of unit creation after the other. But did that mean the army growing in numbers? or the units getting smaller and smaller. Or were there far more units disbanded/destroyed than we know? Jones makes a good point for the last.
Nicasie thinks that many units were not newly created, just re-named after later emperors. i find that a bit speculative. Did the army grow? probably. But the units also became smaller, vexillations never returned, and the losses (especially in the East) may have been such that new units had to be created to keep the army up to strength.

Julian created many new units, did he not? Yet these were also divided into seniores/iuniores. Were they from the start? Or just in 364?


Quote:To suppose some other moments, where seniores-iuniores could be created: in 377 Gratian wanted to help his uncle Valens against the Goths. What should we make out of this? There WERE units sent in the east, if "only in name". What do you think happened with them? Would they return to their parent units? But the next years we only hear of new reinforcements for the east. Would they be integrated into other eastern units? Or - maybe could they be filled up and become iuniores?

I think they never returned, the flow of troops must have ben mostly west to east, i think. Constantius II also kept asking for troops from Julian. But i think that such vexillations may well have become the iniores, as they were formed like a new unit around a cadre of the old unit.

Quote:Other dates for seniores-iuniores creation could be the troops of the third emperor, the "Mittelreich". From 367 (elevation of Gratian) to 388 (death of Maximus) there were always 3 emperors. When Valentinian died 375 his second son Valentinian II. was elevated.
I agree. It is not clear how many units were divided before 364 or after 364, but we can be sure that this practise existed earlier and continued after.

Quote: To draw a conclusion:
Hoffmann did the greatest effort to bring order in the confused late roman army organization and unit history. But he unfortunately did it on some wrong assumptions (he didn't know the definite existence of seniores before 364).
For any army composition therefore I would first start with only what less the sources tell, THEN still look what Hoffmann wrote, and then try to check that with Scharf, Speidel et. al.

I agree! But how can we get such a list from the sources that we have?

Please tell us more on what you already have?
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Late Roman Army - seniores and iuniores - by Robert Vermaat - 02-25-2007, 02:05 PM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Late Roman Army during the 5th century Robert Vermaat 89 17,325 01-11-2024, 04:34 PM
Last Post: Magister_Officiorum13241
  Late Roman Army Ranks - Numeri/Limitanei jmsilvacross 14 1,745 11-17-2021, 01:42 PM
Last Post: Steven James
  Seniores and Iuniores (again) Colonel Chabert 23 3,432 01-09-2021, 12:42 AM
Last Post: Nathan Ross

Forum Jump: