03-01-2016, 11:34 PM
Apologies for reviving a very old thread, but I've been thinking about this seniores/iuniores question and it seemed better to add some thoughts here.
I've always found the idea of legions splitting up and bits of them being sent to opposite ends of the empire rather troublesome - it would be very difficult to organise, amongst other problems!
Might there be a simpler explanation for the different names? All the theories I've so far read or heard about seem to presume that one original field army unit or legion was either split into two (Hoffmann) or sort of gave birth to a 'junior' version of itself (Tomlin).
But could the names simply relate to two separate drafts on an original legion? The names would be used (perhaps in a rather ad hoc way at first) to distinguish units drafted at different times.
So, for example, it might go something like this:
3rd century: Legio I Italica, based at Novae in Moesia.
Late 3rd/early 4th Century: a detachment of the legion sent to Aquileia becomes known as Legio I Italica Moesiaca (this name is recorded on a couple of inscriptions)
c320s: All or part of the Aquileia detachment are taken into the field army as an independent unit, now known as Moesiaci.
c.350s: A second detachment is drawn either from the remaining Aquileia troops or from I Italica (or another legion) in Moesia. They are named Moesiaci Iuniores to distinguish them from the earlier unit, which takes the Seniores title.
This second drafting could have happened at different times with different units, and the naming was perhaps only formalised later (under Valentinian and Valens, perhaps? They could even have changed the names of certain units to reflect their own seniority).
The theory has the advantage of not involving a reduction in size of the field army units - instead, the border troops are (further) depleted by it. It also avoids a vast empire-wide reorganisation of the entire army at the same time.
I'm sure somebody's suggested this idea before - I'm still combing through the literature on the subject! But does it sound plausible? One problem with it might be the position of the auxilia palatina units, who have no 'original' unit to draw upon. A second enlistment from scratch might be an option though.
I've always found the idea of legions splitting up and bits of them being sent to opposite ends of the empire rather troublesome - it would be very difficult to organise, amongst other problems!
Might there be a simpler explanation for the different names? All the theories I've so far read or heard about seem to presume that one original field army unit or legion was either split into two (Hoffmann) or sort of gave birth to a 'junior' version of itself (Tomlin).
But could the names simply relate to two separate drafts on an original legion? The names would be used (perhaps in a rather ad hoc way at first) to distinguish units drafted at different times.
So, for example, it might go something like this:
3rd century: Legio I Italica, based at Novae in Moesia.
Late 3rd/early 4th Century: a detachment of the legion sent to Aquileia becomes known as Legio I Italica Moesiaca (this name is recorded on a couple of inscriptions)
c320s: All or part of the Aquileia detachment are taken into the field army as an independent unit, now known as Moesiaci.
c.350s: A second detachment is drawn either from the remaining Aquileia troops or from I Italica (or another legion) in Moesia. They are named Moesiaci Iuniores to distinguish them from the earlier unit, which takes the Seniores title.
This second drafting could have happened at different times with different units, and the naming was perhaps only formalised later (under Valentinian and Valens, perhaps? They could even have changed the names of certain units to reflect their own seniority).
The theory has the advantage of not involving a reduction in size of the field army units - instead, the border troops are (further) depleted by it. It also avoids a vast empire-wide reorganisation of the entire army at the same time.
I'm sure somebody's suggested this idea before - I'm still combing through the literature on the subject! But does it sound plausible? One problem with it might be the position of the auxilia palatina units, who have no 'original' unit to draw upon. A second enlistment from scratch might be an option though.
Nathan Ross
