Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Late Roman Army - seniores and iuniores
#31
If we accept that a legion under Diocletian was around the 6000 man mark, and by 500AD a legion was between 1400-1700 men strong (if using the evidence from the Perge fragments), then it may be plausible for the legions to have been split into three approximately 2000 strong legions under Constantine, which over time may have come down to the legion size described in the Perge fragments.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Reply
#32
(03-04-2016, 11:49 AM)ValentinianVictrix Wrote: If we accept that a legion under Diocletian was around the 6000 man mark, and by 500AD a legion was between 1400-1700 men strong (if using the evidence from the Perge fragments), then it may be plausible for the legions to have been split into three approximately 2000 strong legions under Constantine, which over time may have come down to the legion size described in the Perge fragments.

Except you need to add to the 6,000 iuniores the 1,200 seniores in the tribal system and then divide by three.
Reply
#33
(03-04-2016, 03:50 AM)Steven James Wrote: I once tried to count the number of iuniores units to seniores units in the ND to see if I could find a relationship with the ratio with the ratio of iuniores and seniores in the tribal system, but the translation of the ND I used was not clear on identifying some units as iuniores or seniores. This could be the way the ND was written. So I could not come to any conclusion.

Were you using William Fairley's translation? The Latin text can be found online in The Latin Library here:
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/notitia.html
You may find that more helpful.

Alternatively, Otto Seeck's edition can be found here:
https://archive.org/stream/notitiadignit...5/mode/2up
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#34
(03-04-2016, 03:50 AM)Steven James Wrote: the translation of the ND I used was not clear on identifying some units as iuniores or seniores.

Only about half the units listed in the ND are either seniores or iuniores - the other half have only the single name. This, I would think, is further suggestion that the distinction was not the result of a single empire-wide policy but rather of an occasional doubling of certain units, perhaps at various times; either (and I accept the points raised above!) by raising a new unit, perhaps using a cadre of men from the 'senior' formation, or by drawing a new 'junior' draft from the original legion that had provided the 'senior' detachment.


(03-03-2016, 02:20 PM)Robert Vermaat Wrote: In case of the former I'd expect not 'iuniores' but perhaps 'secundani' etc.

Well, yes - but we already have a unit called Secundani, and another called Primani... that would lead to the Primani Primani, and the Secundani Secundani, which would be arcane even by the standards of Roman nomenclature! [Image: smile.png]
Reply
#35
Could it be possible that the term prior and posterior centuries were changed to iuniores and seniores?  So if a legion numbered 2400 men, it consisted of 1,200 iuniores (old prior centuries), and 1,200 seniores (old posterior centuries).
Reply
#36
I have found a very enigmatic statement from Maurus Servius Honoratus:

Servius, In Vergilii Georgicis comentarii, 1, 43; 8 (auctor fl.c.400AD)

                Aprilis vero dictus est, quasi terras tepore aperiens; Maius a Maia; Iunius a Iunone, quamquam alii a maioribus et iunioribus hos duos menses velint esse nominatos: nam antea populus Romanus in centurias iuniorum et seniorum divisus fuerat.

Could this be translated as: “previously the Roman People have been divided into centuries of iuniores and seniores?”

What are the centuries? Army centuries, voting centuries or something else???

Does this mean that in Servius’ timeframe (4th-5th century AD) the Romans are not anymore divided into iuniores seniores centuries?
Reply
#37
Julian wrote:

What are the centuries? Army centuries, voting centuries or something else???
 
They are tribal centuries, which also function as voting centuries and military centuries. They are one and the same.
 
Julian wrote:
Does this mean that in Servius’ timeframe (4th-5th century AD) the Romans are not anymore divided into iuniores seniores centuries?
 
My conclusion is Constantine abolished the Roman tribal system. Ammianus talks about it in a past tense.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  References to late Roman army??? Steven James 123 14,633 11-09-2017, 08:50 PM
Last Post: Julian de Vries
  Two Batavi Iuniores? Liam Boyle 2 486 07-31-2017, 07:59 PM
Last Post: Nathan Ross
  Late Roman Army Grade/Rank List under Anastasius Longovicium 172 35,739 07-09-2017, 06:59 PM
Last Post: Nathan Ross

Forum Jump: