A strange gift by the Emperor Iulianus

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

At the time of the Notitia Dignitatum the Protectores Domestici were split in a cavalry and an infantry unit under the command of the Comes domesticorum equitum and of the Comes domesticorum peditum.
I thought that that splitting in cavalry and infantry was practically just administrative at the time of the drawing up of ND, assuming that the Domestici as acting like palace élite guards/staff were above all cavalrymen when on the field with the Emperor.

Anyway when the Emperor Iulianus wrote the letter to Leontius (maybe he was Praepositus militum auxiliarum in 370), he said to him:

...So, assigning you the use of the arms, we have sent you a panoply especially made for an infantryman, moreover we have enlisted you in the palace guard....

Maybe Leontius was not a soldier before and one can think to a honorific title, I doubt for that he could be enlisted as a "Candidatus", so he likely could be a Protector Domesticus, but I find a bit strange that Infantry panoply... Moreover, as an Emperor's gift to a very honest and loyal man, as Iulianus says about him, that panoply ought be very fine and rich.
That's more likely for a cavalryman in the late Empire to me, since I don't remember of rich helmets and weapons findings belonged to an infantry officer. What do you think?

Valete,

[Carlton Bach]

I'm not sure that we can enturely trust the idea of 'no rich armour for infantrymen'. I rather suspect a degree of reverse reasoning - cavalry is the senior service, hence all decorated stuff must be cavalry.

That said, if it's a gift from the Emperor it was bound to be rich. Are we talking about a standard Hellenistic-style panoply or actual combat armour? Given Julian's hellenophilia, I suspect the former.

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

Yes, even a "poor looking" late infantry officer could be strange at the same, seen the past tradition, so it could be the infantry officers were "good looking" like the their cavalry colleagues, and just the troopers were less "rich looking". Anyway I suspect that even if the infantrymen were less paid in the late Empire, the Comitatenses kept at the same a certain degree of "good looking" kits, as you can see from some silver plated intercisa type helmets too.

About the Julian's look in battle, this is a question I make myself since a lot. He was an Hellenistic man, but he was ascetic till to the extreme and he was always among his soldiers, with whom had regularly meals in campaign, so maybe that when Caesar he wore ridge helmet (like the Durne, for example)/squamata/pteriges scheme, not precious anyway. But I like to think that in the persian campaign, when Emperor and Vicarius of Helios he wore a classical kit like an attic/ muscolata/pteriges. But it's speculation for now.

BTW, we never think that antiques could also exist in the roman times, and antiques trades too, maybe that some pieces could survive centuries too, especially if belonged to important men. So why could not a precious cuirass from Marcus Aurelius' time be worn in the IV century, if well maintained and restored?

Vale,

[Robert Vermaat]

I like to think of that 'panoply' as a lorica squamata or something like that, nothing hellenistic. it's probably an archaic word - we see Ammianus use these too: he has Julianus' troops fight the 'Parthians' wielding a 'gladius'. I suspect this word is also an archaic one for a modern set of body armour.