Twilight of Empire: The Roman Army from the Reign of Diocletian Until the Battle of Adrianople 9050634486, 9789050634489

Citation preview

TWILIGHT OF EMPIRE

DUTCH MONOGRAPHS ON ANCIENT HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY EDITORS

H.W. PLEKET

- F.J.A.M. MEUER

VOLUME XIX

M.J. NICASIE TWILIGHT OF EMPIRE

M.J. NICASIE

TWILIGHT OF EMPIRE THE ROMAN ARMY FROM THE REIGN OF DIOCLETIAN UNTIL THE BATTLE OF ADRIANOPLE

J.C. GIEBEN, PUBLISHER AMSTERDAM 1998

No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. ©by M.J. Nicasie, 1998 I Printed in The Netherlands I ISBN 90 5063 448 6

To Elles, Vosmar and Ravenna

Acknowledgements

A book like the present one could not have been written without the support of others. First and foremost I should pay tribute to my wife, who has for the past ten years put up with a husband spending far too much of his time with ancient Romans and modem computers and was dragged from one Roman ruin to another, both at home and abroad, and to my children; this book is dedicated to them. My parents were instrumental in stimulating my interest in history, ancient and modem. Professor Pleket as my promotor, did more than could reasonably have been expected of him; his comments and remarks, whether flattering or disapproving, were always helpful and thought-provoking, and his staunch support and good humour throughout the four years I spent at Leiden University were a great comfort. My thanks are also due to Dr. H.W. Singor, who first brought the attractions of Late Roman history to my attention and has contributed much to the development of my ideas on the late Roman army. The discussions I have had with Dick Bax and Derk Groeneveld have contributed much to my understanding of ancient warfare. Mary B. Richardson showed endless patience and endurance in proofreading the manuscript; both this book and my own knowledge of the English language have benefited greatly from her help. Last of all, I would like to thank my comrades-in-arms at Leiden University: Herman Roozenbeek, Huib Lirb, Rolf Strootman and Lily Knibbeler. They know why. Rijswijk, February 1997

Martijn Nicasie

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

I. The creation of the late Roman army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Comitatenses and limitanei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The comitatenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The limitanei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. A New Model Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 13 14 16 18 23

II. The organization of the army in the fourth century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Unit types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Scholae Palatinae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The legions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The au.xilia palatina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Other infantry units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Cavalry units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Artillery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. Allies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. The strength of army units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. The size of the late Roman army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Higher-level organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43 43 43 45 48 53 56 60 65 66 67 74 76

III. Recruitment . . . . . . . . . . A. Introduction . . . . . . . . B. The eligibility of recruits C. Voluntary recruitment . . D. The recruiting tax . . . .

. . . . .

83 83 85 92 94

IV. The "barbarization" of the Roman army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Senior officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. The rank and file . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Barbarian customs and formations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

97 97 100 103 107

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

V. The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. The borders of the Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Strategy and planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Gathering information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Strategy and campaigns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Fourth-century strategy: a Grand Strategy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

117 117 121 145 146 155 165 172

VI. The profession of arms: the army at war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. The instruments of war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Infantry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Cavalry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Artillery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Battle tactics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. The Battle of Strasbourg, A.D. 357 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. The Battle of Adrianople, A.D. 378 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

185 185 187 187 194 198 199 219 233

Epilogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 Primary sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 Secondary sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 General index

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

Index of sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

Introduction

Any study of the military apparatus of the Roman Empire should need no elaborate justification. For to the Romans, to reverse Carl von Clausewitz' famous dictum, politics seem to have been the continuation of war with different means. From the foundation of their city state, probably sometime in the eight century B.C., until the fall of the western Empire in the fifth century A.D., the history of Rome is riddled with armed conflicts. It is a sorry tale of foreign wars, civil wars, rebellions of slaves, of subject peoples, of oppressed groups in society, usurpations by powerful senators and generals, and, in the fourth century, virtual crusades against religious dissidents; the list seems almost endless. Indeed, so common was the state of war that when, at the end of the first century B.C., Augustus closed the Temple of Ianus on the Capitoline Hill as an official recognition that the pox Romana reigned throughout the Empire, this was seen as a highly unusual and remarkable occasion. The turbulent fourth century A.D. constitutes no exception to this rather depressing history of struggle and strife, and a study of the late Roman military establishment therefore can be useful in helping us to understand the history of the Roman Empire as it slowly but surely neared its violent end in western Europe. When in 1889 Theodor Mommsen wrote his famous article on the organization of the Roman army in the period after Diocletian, he recommended the study of his subject to future historians as both desirable and rewarding. 1 His words, however, fell largely on deaf ears; and among English-speaking historians, particularly, his call went unheeded. By and large - even though much work has been done on matters of detail and some limited attempts at a synthesis have been made - this has remained the situation until recently .2 This book is an attempt to rectify this omission. It is a study of the Roman army from the latter part of the third century, when the efforts of Diocletian shaped the Empire's frontier strategy for generations to come, to the battle of Adrianople, which has traditionally been seen as a watershed in the history of the later Roman Empire.

1 2

Mommsen (1889) 195. See now Treadgold (1995), Elton (1996), Dixon & Southern (1996).

1

2

Introduction

When Diocletian came to power after a brutal civil war in 284, the Roman Empire was just beginning to emerge from a protracted phase of total anarchy. From the violent death in 235 of the last scion of the Severan dynasty, Alexander Severus, to the accession of Diocletian almost fifty years later, the Empire witnessed a continuous stream of civil wars, foreign wars and barbarian invasions, as well as the secession of sometimes large parts of the Empire, economic decline and social unrest. Alexander's successor, Maximinus Thrax, had lent Fate a hand in bringing about the death of the young Emperor, and by so doing had made it clear to all with eyes to see that henceforth any general with sufficient daring and ruthlessness could claim the throne if he so wished. The message did not go unnoticed, and in the half century following Alexander Severus' untimely demise, in addition to the no less than twentyone Emperors who came to the throne by more or less legitimate means, countless usurpers tried with rather less success to stake their claim to the purple. Even legitimate Emperors usually did not get the chance to enjoy their newly-won status for long: the average reign of the period lasted less than two years. All third-century Roman Emperors after Alexander Severus met with violent ends - except for Claudius II, who succumbed to the Plague. One, Valerian, died in Persian captivity, and another, Decius, fell in battle against the Goths; all of their colleagues perished by the sword - often wielded by their own soldiers. In the East in the late 260s and early 270s, part of the Empire was virtually conquered by Rome's erstwhile ally, the Syrian caravan city of Palmyra. Although Palmyra's domination of the eastern provinces of the Empire proved ephemeral, it took a large-scale military operation under the skillful direction of the soldier-emperor, Aurelian, to reestablish Roman control. The so-called Gallic Empire, formed in the West at about the same time, proved more enduring. After the Gallic heartlands of this break-away state, too, were ultimately reconquered by Aurelian, new rebellions took place; and it was not until 293 that the last rebellious province, Britannia, was reunited with the Roman Empire. Apart from civil wars, ongoing conflicts with neighbouring peoples were characteristic of the third century. In the East, from the 220s onwards, Rome was confronted by a rejuvenated Persian Empire. While the Parthians had generally been content to remain on the defensive and Roman armies had usually been able to defeat them relatively easily, under the formidable Sassanids Persia took an aggressive and threatening stance towards its Roman neighbour. In the northwestern part of Europe, barbarian tribes, often of Germanic stock, invaded the territory of the Empire on almost a yearly basis - often taking advantage of the fact that part of the troops opposing them had been withdrawn to fight in one or another internal conflict. In the process, large areas of imperial territory were ravaged, which limited the amount of tax, in kind or in money, which could be drawn from them, and thus adversely affected the ability of the central government to pay for its expenses.

Introduction

3

From about 260 onwards, a series of so-called "soldier-emperors" paved the way for the reformation of the Empire by Diocletian and Constantine. Gallienus, Claudius II, Aurelian, Tacitus and Probus all spent much of their reigns fighting the enemies of Rome and succeeded in restoring law and order in much of the Empire's territory. However, the generally short duration of their regimes necessarily limited the scale of their achievements. This was to change with the advent of Diocletian. Though he has been described as a traditionalist, it would be difficult to overestimate his influence: during his reign nearly all sectors of society underwent profound changes. Diocletian realized that probably the most important reason for the internal turmoil of the third century had been the lack of an efficient system to regulate the imperial succession. He also understood that the Empire had become too large for any single man to be able to control on his own. Therefore, he instituted what has become known as the Tetrarchy, the Rule of Four. He chose an experienced soldier, Maximian, to rule half of the Empire as his co-emperor. The senior emperors bore the title of Augustus; they each chose a successor-designate with the rank of Caesar. Thus, it was clear who was to succeed as Augustus long before the matter became urgent; furthermore, each of the four reigning emperors now controlled a quarter of the Empire, which meant that there was always an emperor at hand to deal with emergencies on the frontiers. However, the system of the Tetrarchy broke down soon after Diocletian and Maximian voluntarily stepped down in 305 - the only emperors ever to do so. The system was somewhat artificial and dynastic ties proved soon too strong: the soldiers of Constantius, Maximian's Caesar who duly succeeded him as Augustus, raised his son Constantine to the rank of Augustus when Constantius died at York in 306. Nevertheless, Diocletian's attempt to regulate the succession led indirectly to the partitioning of the Empire into two halves. Henceforth the Roman Empire was usually ruled by two or more emperors, and it became customary to appoint members of the imperial family to act as Caesares in different sectors of the Empire. Diocletian's reorganization of the provinces of the Empire and of the system of taxation, his expansion of the size of the army, and the massive resources in both money and manpower which he poured into an ambitious building program in order to increase the defensive capacities of the border regions further improved the situation o( the Empire. Perhaps surprisingly, though, the third century was one of near stagnation in military developments. The army which was inherited by Diocletian closely resembled that of Septimius Severus one hundred years earlier, and that army, although significantly larger than that of Augustus, differed little in outlook and organization from the army of the first Roman emperor. 3 Its backbone was the famous Roman legions, units of

For the early imperial army in general see, e.g., Cheesman (1914), H.M.D. Parker (1958), Watson (1969), Webster (1969), Holder (1982), Junkelmann (1985), Le Bohec (1990), and Peddie ( 1994).

3

4

Introduction

citizen-soldiers about 5,500 strong, consisting almost entirely of heavy infantry armed with a sword, a shield and a javelin and wearing a metal helmet and body armour. From the time of Augustus to that of Septimius Severus, their number had fluctuated between twenty-five and thirty; Septimius Severus raised three new legions, and during the troubled third century the number of legions in service slowly increased, until there were about sixty when Diocletian came to power. The legions were supported by a class of units, the auxilia, originally levied from Rome's subject peoples. By the later third century there was little difference between an auxiliary soldier and a legionary, except in status and pay. The auxilia consisted of units either about 500 or about 800 strong, organized in cohortes of infantry and cavalry alae. Some units, called cohortes equitatae, included both a cohors of infantry and a cavalry squadron. Except for the imperial guard at Rome and legio II Parthica, stationed at Alba near the capital from the reign of Septimius Severus onwards, almost the whole army was deployed along the frontiers of the Roman Empire. By the end of the period covered by this study, however, the army had taken an entirely different form. Instead of the units familiar from the Principate, the late fourth-century Notitia Dignitatum lists a very large number of presumably smaller legions as well as new units - cavalry vexillationes, cunei equitum, auxilia palatina and numerous types of units of border defence troops. In the later Empire, the army was organized into a field army, consisting of mobile elite units stationed in the interior, and a border defence force, consisting of units of static troops of somewhat inferior quality and status garrisoning the forts and fortlets along the borders of the Roman territory. Thanks to the Notitia, we know more or less the form of the later Roman army. However, the question of whether the late Roman army was the result of the reforms of Diocletian or rather of Constantine remains in dispute. Mommsen stated that the change from an army deployed almost exclusively on the frontiers to the dual system of a central field army and a border defence force was the watershed in Roman military history, but he did not attempt to establish who was responsible for specific innovations in this reorganization; according to Mommsen, the late Roman army was the joint creation of Diocletian and Constantine. 4 Instead of pursuing Mommsen's enquiries into the development and organization of the later Roman army, historians generally have simply followed Mommsen' s view. 5 When Nischer expressed his disagreement with Mommsen, and tried to show that it had been Diocletian who had enlarged the army and created a system of regional reserves, and Constantine who had separated the army into comitatenses and

Mommsen (1889) 198, 228. s E.g., Grosse (1920).

4

Introduction

5

limitanei, he was severely criticized. 6 There can be no doubt, as Parker and Baynes showed, that Nischer sometimes jumped to conclusions; his handling of the notoriously recalcitrant Notitia Dignitatum was not always beyond reproach. 7 Already before the reign of Diocletian, the first traces of a central army could be discerned in the shape of legionary vexillationes and elite units of mobile cavalry, and as a result of the Persian and Egyptian campaigns of Diocletian and Galerius, this development was crystallized and accelerated. Constantine's achievements, the ultimate and definitive separation of comitatenses and limitanei and the reorganization of the high command, were seen by most historians as the logical conclusion to Diocletian's reforms. Thus, the Mommsenian model remained dominant. 8 However, with the publication of Van Berchem' s book on the army of Diocletian and the reforms of Constantine, Nischer's ideas were partially vindicated. 9 By meticulously comparing the data from the Notitia with the results of archaeological finds drawn mainly from the eastern part of the Roman Empire, Van Berchem came to the conclusion that Diocletian first and foremost increased the size of the army. In his reign the Roman army retained its traditional outlook; Diocletian's army was not very different from that of Septimius Severus. The number of legions had increased greatly, but Van Berchem found no reason to assume that Diocletian's legions were differently organized from those during the Principate. Even before Diocletian, and increasingly in the course of the third century, units of elite cavalry had been formed. If there was need for an expeditionary army, it was formed in the traditional manner: by temporarily withdrawing legionary vexillationes and auxiliary units from border provinces elsewhere. These troops were then known as the Emperor's household, the comitatus. This comitatus was, however, always formed ad hoc; it remained in existence only as long as was deemed necessary. Under Diocletian, the defence of the border regions was reorganized; every new border province was, in principle, defended by a garrison of two legions. There were still alae and cohortes, even though according to Van Berchem they had degenerated in some regions into a local militia consisting of farmer-soldiers, limitanei. On the borders of the Empire, these changes, already under way, were merely stimulated and accelerated by Diocletian. During his reign the borders were further reinforced with new auxilia and protected by newly constructed complexes of fortifications on a massive scale, particularly in the East. Command was strictly separated: the old style auxiliary units remained under the command of the provincial governors, but the legions and the new cavalry vexillationes (now called equites) were henceforth commanded by newly created

Nischer's fullest statement of his argument is in Nischer (1923). Baynes (1925), H.M.D. Parker (1933); see also Varady (1961) 357 ff. 8 Baynes's remark in his paper on the reforms of Diocletian and Constantine is typical: "I still remain an unrepentant disciple of Mommsen"; Baynes (1925) 204. 9 Van Berchem (1952). 6

7

6

Introduction

duces, who were responsible for an area of frontier territory usually but not always coinciding with the provincial boundaries. 10 According to Van Berchem, Constantine was the one who first formed a permanent field army. 11 The field army troops or comitatenses took their place alongside the border defence troops of limitanei or ripenses, which occupied a position distinctly lower on the hierarchical ladder and were now commanded exclusively by duces. 12 The praetorian prefects lost their command over the army, and retained only their civilian tasks; in their place came two magistri, the magister peditum who commanded the infantry and the magister equitum who led the mounted troops. During the course of the fourth century, the comitatenses continued to develop, while the ripenses progressively deteriorated and became increasingly useless as fighting troops. 13 This determined attack on the principles formulated by Mommsen did not remain unanswered. W. Seston rejected Van Berchem's theory on the separate commands of dux and governor. 14 He pointed out that in several regions no duces were appointed until long after the reign of Diocletian. Nor did he accept Van Berchem's assertion that the alares and cohortales were farmer-soldiers, the predecessors of the later limitanei. These farmer-soldiers did exist under Diocletian, and had existed at least since the reign of Philippus Arabs; but even under Honorius, at the very end of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth, they had not replaced the alae en cohortes but served alongside them. Diocletian reinforced the borders by increasing the number of troops defending them, but the new troops were not yet tied to the land. According to Van Berchem, Constantine's comitatenses had nothing to do with the comitatus of Diocletian and his fellow-emperors. 15 This hypothesis, too, was attacked by Seston. It is true, as Van Berchem says, that the term comitatenses first appears in a law of 325; but Seston pointed out that a passage from the Acta Maximiliani (295) emphatically suggests the existence of a more or less permanent army corps called comitatus under Diocletian. 16 Seston believed that the vexillationes attested in Egypt in 295 became the nucleus of this comitatus. Diocletian, however, did not further develop the system of reserves in the hinterland of the border provinces, possibly from fear of more usurpations; but neither did he completely 10 11 12

13 14 15 16

Van Berchem (1952) 21-24. Van Berchem (1952) 108. Van Berchem (1952) 100. Van Berchem (1952) 108-111. Seston (1955). Van Berchem (1952) 106-109. See Moreau (1954) 291-292; cf. below, page 84.

Introduction

7

abolish them, and cities like Aquileia and Concordia retained a garrison. Nevertheless, Diocletian's comitatus remained little more than an expanded imperial guard. In the end, Seston remained faithful to Mommsen's model: Constantine did little more than flesh out the Diocletianic skeleton, by organizing the army on a stricter basis and reforming its command structure. Both components - the field army and the border defence force - had existed since the reign of Diocletian. So far, the only attempt to reconstruct the Notitia Dignitatum and to write an exhaustive history of the field armies was that of Dietrich Hoffmann. His massive thesis, published in two volumes in 1969-1970, became the standard work on the comitatenses. 11 Hoffmann's main hypothesis was that the field armies as we know them from the Notitia originated in 364, when the Roman army was divided between the brothers Valentinian and Valens. The argument was based on the fact that many units in the lists of the Notitia bore a suffix, either iuniores or seniores. When Hoffmann wrote his book, no evidence had been found that contradicted his theory. However, an inscription has since been published that proves that units styled iuniores and seniores existed before 364, which has effectively demolished the theory of the division of 364. 18 Moreover, because of lack of evidence Hoffmann often relied on informed speculation to reconstruct the history of individual units, and also regularly used the shield patterns with which the Notitia is illustrated as proof for the existence, connection or lineage of field army units. Doubts have been thrown on the validity of this approach, since the shield patterns may not have been genuine or may have been distorted during the transcription of the text. 19 Thus, although the work still contains much that is instrumental to the understanding of the later Roman establishment, Hoffmann's main thesis has been proven defective and his reconstructions of the separate units are not always trustworthy. Despite the misgivings of some modem scholars, Van Berchem's theories have become more or less universally adopted. A.H.M. Jones, for instance, has accepted that Diocletian, the traditionalist, merely enlarged the army, while Constantine was the true innovator, who greatly expanded the comitatus, raised new units in the form of auxilia palatina and cunei equitum, and thoroughly reorganized the command structure of the late Roman army. 20 Traditionally, the development of the Roman army during the late Empire has been seen as a process of slow deterioration. Since Mommsen, the orthodox position taken by most scholars has been that the Roman army, like the Empire itself, degenerated;

17 18 19

20

Hoffmann (1969). Drew-Bear (1977). Grigg (1983). A.H.M. Jones (1964) chap. 17, "The Anny"; Ferrill (1983) 43, 47.

8

Introduction

for a number of reasons its value as a fighting force has been supposed to have declined sharply. In the first place, the reorganization of the army and the change in Roman strategy begun by Diocletian and, particularly, their development under Constantine have generally been assessed negatively. 21 The formation of a field army and the accompanying withdrawal of troops from the frontiers have been considered a move to strengthen the position of the Emperor, not of the Empire; for if the Emperor kept a significant field army close at hand the risks of usurpation by powerful generals were reduced. 22 The separation of the army into an elite field army and a border defence force of lesser quality and status has been seen as divisive and as detrimental to the training and discipline of the troops on the borders of the Empire. The latter, it has been claimed, quickly degenerated into local militias of soldier-farmers, occupying themselves more and more with farming and less and less with soldiering. 23 This, in tum, has been seen as a cause of a decreased ability of the central government to protect the territory of the Empire and its subjects from the horrors of foreign invasion. As a consequence, is has been claimed, the subjects of the Emperor became less willing to support a government unable to provide them with a minimum of security, and this lack of support was a major cause of the fall of the Empire in the West in the fifth century A.D. Apart from this, scholars have discerned signs of decline within the Roman army itself. As the indigenous population shirked its duties, and tried to avoid military service as much as possible, the Empire increasingly came to rely upon recruits of barbarian extraction to fill the ranks of its army. These barbarian soldiers kept to their traditional ways of fighting, and as a result Roman armies gradually became indistinguishable in composition and in combat methods from the barbarian tribes they fought. Barbarian soldiers were inherently unreliable, because their loyalty was always in doubt, and it was even more so when, during the later parts of the fourth century and during the fifth century in particular, barbarian tribes were hired en masse and en bloc, eventually to provide the majority of units in the Roman army. These barbarian recruits purportedly disdained time-honoured Roman traditions of training and discipline, and considered effective weaponry such as metal body armour to be cumbersome and disreputable; on the other hand, those few Roman recruits still dragged reluctantly into the army had become soft and decadent, finding training, discipline and the use of armour bothersome, trying and unnecessary, and were generally more interested in exploiting than in protecting the civilian population of the Empire. Thus, in the end, even as far as weaponry and battle appearance is concerned, Roman armies and barbarian armies became practically identical. 24 As E.g., Ferrill (1983) 46-50. E.g., Van Berchem (1952) 114, Ferrill (1983) 46. 23 E.g., Van Berchem (1952) 18-21; Ferrill (1983) 46, 67. 24 See, e.g., Ferrill (1983) 47, Grosse (1920) 38-42, 257-258, 260-265, Hoffmann (1969) chap. 6, "Die Gallienarmee", 131-208, Kromayer & Veith (1928) 587, 597-598. 21

22

Introduction

9

a consequence, it has been held, even though the Roman army was much larger during the later Empire than it had ever been before, the decrease in its efficiency left it much less capable of properly executing its tasks. In a now famous book by E.N. Luttwak published in 1976 the author, not a professional ancient historian but a strategic analyst specializing in the study of relations between the Superpowers, presented the theory that the defence of the Roman Empire throughout its history was based on a "Grand Strategy", a masterplan for the territorial defence of the Empire as a whole. Working along the lines set out by Nischer and Van Berchem, Luttwak developed the hypothesis that it was Diocletian who devised a strategy of what Luttwak called "shallow defence-in-depth". In this system, the troops defending the borders of the Empire, based on a strong line of physical defences on the frontiers, were supported by regional reserves of more mobile troops. According to Luttwak Constantine further developed this system when he created the central field army from these regional reserve forces. The result was a true system of defence-in-depth: a border defence force of limitanei based in forts of a new type, with strong defensive features, instead of the lighter, offensive fortifications of the early imperial period, now formed the first line of defence for the territory of the Empire, while a central mobile field army of comitatenses, with the assistance of local limitanei, could be deployed in any sector of the Empire to defeat invading troops. The border defences were no longer limited to the perimeter; a whole, albeit shallow, zone along the frontiers was protected by strategically positioned forts and fortlets. Roads were protected by small forts, watchtowers and road stations to deny their use to any invading troops, and cities, granaries and villae were fortified to limit the opportunities for invaders to provision themselves from the countryside. Thus, an invader was intended to be restricted in his movements both by the physical defences in the area and by a serious shortage of supplies. For this system to work adequately, it was necessary that the frontiers of the Empire be placed along lines that could be easily defended, such as rivers, mountain ranges and deserts. Thus, according to Luttwak, the frontiers of the Empire were deliberately chosen with a defensive purpose in mind. Like the reorganization of the army, this Grand Strategy resulting from Diocletian's and Constantine's reorganizations has been severely criticized. 25 The field army was a response to the total breakdown of the provincial defences during the third century; for traditionally almost the entire Roman army had been deployed along the frontiers. When the enemy succeeded in penetrating these frontier defences, there were no troops deployed in the interior to oppose them, and they were able to roam the Empire at will. Under the new system, the border defence troops were meant to slow

25 Luttwak (1976) 188-194 was not too enthusiastic himself; see also, e.g., Ferrill (1983) 4649.

10

Introduction

the enemy down and to inflict as many casualties as possible; the central field army could then be marched to the territory under threat to defeat the invaders. However, it has been argtied that this system, too, was deficient, for the slowness of communications ensured that, usually, the central field army would take far too long to reach the scene of the attack. In the meantime, the frontier defences had been fatally weakened by the withdrawal of troops to form the field army and by the simultaneous decline of the limitanei. Thus, the new system brought no remedy to the old problem while further weakening the capability of the frontier defence forces to protect the territory of the Empire. Some scholars have gone even further, and have denied altogether the existence of anything like a Grand Strategy. 26 It has been argued that the location of the frontiers of the Roman Empire was not the result of deliberate choice, but a consequence of the limited possibilities of supplying large numbers of troops stationed permanently inland; that is why so many Roman frontiers could be found in the vicinity of large rivers, which were used as transport arteries. On this theory, borders were administrative and legal, but not military or territorial. Others have argued that the borders of the Empire had come into being more or less accidentally - that they were simply there where no further expansion was possible or desirable; or that the Romans did not have the capacity to construct any Grand Strategy at all, because of the limited means of communication and the resulting lack of information available to the central government, and the Romans' poor knowledge of geography and cartography. 27 The new organization of the Roman army and the Grand Strategy - if any underlying it are the subject of this study. It will be argued that the Roman army of the fourth century was by no means inferior to its predecessor of the Principate; on the contrary, in some ways the Roman army in the fourth century was better prepared to confront the challenges facing it than during the early centuries of the Empire. In chapter I the development of the Roman army in the third century, the organization of the army in the fourth century, and the parts Diocletian and Constantine played in bringing it about will be discussed. In chapter II, the focus is on the different units that made up the fourth-century army, their strength, and the organization and strength of the reformed army as a whole. In chapter III, the recruitment of the army will be considered, and in chapter IV an attempt will be made to establish whether the army of the fourth century was to any extent "barbarized". Chapter V is devoted to discussion of logistics - the focal point of warfare in this period as in so many others - of the gathering of military intelligence - a conditio sine qua non for any strategy - and of whether there was anything that could be called a Grand Strategy

26 27

E.g., Isaac (1990) chap. 9, and Whittaker (1989) passim and (1994) chap. 3. Mann (1979).

Introduction

11

in the fourth century. In chapter VI the army in the field will be studied, and the instruments of battle available to Roman generals in the fourth century and the tactics they employed on the battlefield will be analyzed; and two battles from the fourth century for which a sufficient amount of evidence is available to reconstruct them in some detail- the battle of Strasbourg in 357 and the battle of Adrianople in 378 will be discussed. In the final chapter the conclusions drawn from this inquiry into the Roman army of the fourth century will be reviewed and a brief look taken at the period following that discussed in this book.

I. The creation of the late Roman army

A. Introduction

Traditionally, almost the entire Roman imperial army had been deployed on the frontiers. The different units were based on the stone-built fortresses, fortlets and strongholds that together formed the elaborate defensive system characteristic of the limites, the frontier districts. 1 The widespread troubles during the third century, when the frontiers everywhere had come under severe pressure and invading barbarians had been able to penetrate almost undisturbed into the very heartlands of the Empire, had shown that this system was deficient. The thirty-odd legions and their auxiliaries were simply not strong enough to guard the entire frontier of the Empire, which was almost 10,000 kilometers long. 2 Once the impossibility of keeping the frontiers always and everywhere impenetrable had been accepted, it became clear that something needed to be done to ensure that barbarian invaders, were they able to break through the frontier defences, be located and destroyed before the damage to the provinces caused by their incursions became irreparable. A second strategic problem created by the dispersion of all available troops along a defensive perimeter was the lack of a central offensive striking force. Even during the early Empire, whenever an expeditionary army needed to be formed, troops had to be withdrawn from quiet frontier sections in the somewhat uncertain hope that those sections would remain quiet once the troops had left. When this hope proved not to tum out, as happened for example during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, a very serious situation could arise. 3 The fact that in the event, with one notable exception that ended in disaster, no large-scale offensive wars were fought during the later Empire, is irrelevant; the political need to expand the Empire weighed always heavily on the mind of any emperor, and Rome's claim to world dominion was never formally abandoned. Thus, the need existed for the instrument to pursue such a

1 2

3

For a discussion of the term limes cf. Isaac (1988) 125-138. Szilagyi (1954) 205. Luttwak (1976) 125.

13

14

The creation of the late Roman army

policy, even though in the harsh reality of the third and fourth centuries most emperors were hard-pressed to preserve the Empire intact, and expansion was really out of the question. Apart from these considerations, the constant harrassment of the Roman frontier provinces by smaller barbarian raids prompted the need for punitive expeditions on a somewhat more restricted scale. Nearly all fourth-century emperors saw themselves forced, at least once in their career, to take the field against the Germanic enemies of the Empire. Constantine and his successors, Constantius II, Julian, and Valentinian, all campaigned along the Rhine and the Danube. Clearly, not all of these expeditions could be successfully carried out by the provincial defence forces, who were overstretched and overburdened; as it was, they were hardly capable of defending their positions, let alone of taking the offensive unsupported. The solution to both problems - the difficulty of defending the frontiers of the Empire and the lack of a central striking force - was the establishment of a permanent field army. The reasons, the plans and policies - in other words the "Grand Strategy" that led to this reorganization of the army - will be discussed in more detail in chapter V. First we will try to establish what the army looked like during the fourth century - how it was organized, what its components were - and how this organization evolved.

B. Comitatenses and limitanei

At the tum of the fourth century we find the Roman army divided into two classes of troops. Such units as retained their positions along the frontiers - according to the Notitia Dignitatum, mainly auxiliary cohorts and alae, numeri and legions - became known as limitanei, border troops, or in some riverine provinces as ripenses or riparienses, river defence forces. At the same time, a more or less permanent field army was formed, consisting of the emperor's household troops, the new Scholae Palatinae, and a number of elite units of infantry and cavalry - legions as well as new cavalry vexillationes and infantry auxilia - together known as comitatenses. These field army troops, usually under the direct command of the emperor himself, apparently were intended to serve as a kind of mobile "fire brigade", to be committed against such enemy troops as had succeeded in breaking through the frontier defences. Our sources are divided on the question of whether it was Diocletian or Constantine who reorganized the defence of the Empire at either the end of the third or the beginning of the fourth century. According to the Byzantine chronicler, Johannes Malalas, it was Diocletian:

Comitatenses and limitanei

15

Diocletian also built fortresses on the limes from Egypt to the Persian borders and stationed limitanei in them, and he appointed duces for each province to be stationed further back from the fortresses with a large force to ensure their security. They put up stelae to the Emperor and the Caesar on the limes of Syria. 4 Generally, however, scholars point to Constantine as the first emperor to conceive the idea of a separate field army. 5 Zosimus tells us disapprovingly that Constantine took another measure that permitted the barbarians to penetrate into the territory subjected to Roman domination without encountering resistance; for, thanks to the foresight of Diocletian, according to the principle I mentioned earlier, the Roman Empire was on all its frontiers protected by cities, fortresses and towers, and because the whole of the army was quartered in them, passage was impossible for the barbarians, since everywhere there were forces ready to resist and capable of repulsing the assailants. Well, abolishing this security and withdrawing from the frontiers the main part of the soldiers, Constantine established them in the cities that had no need for protection, deprived of assistance those who were menaced by the barbarians, and imposed upon the peaceful cities the disorder the soldiery provokes - which has left them thenceforth mostly deserted - and let the soldiers grow soft, giving themselves over to the theaters and an idle life, and in one word was himself the origin and sowed the seed of the ruin of the state that still affects us even today. 6 Zosimus' account, at least as far as the role of Constantine is concerned, seems to be corroborated by a vague statement in Aurelius Victor's De Caesaribus that Constantine "renewed" the armed service. 7 The sixth-century Byzantine chronicler and antiquarian, Johannes Lydus, also ascribes to the first Christian emperor the withdrawal of troops from the banks of the Danube and their dispersion across Asia Minor. 8 Joh. Malalas Chron. Vll.13.40. The translation is that of Jeffreys, Jeffreys and Scott, The Chronicle of John Mala/as (Melbourne 1986), but I follow Isaac (1988) 72 and Van Berchem (1952) 17-18 in substituting stelae for their somewhat improbable "statues"; Malalas more likely meant "milestones", of which a large number have been found in the area. That duces commanded large forces stationed back from the frontiers is nowhere else attested, and it seems most probable that Malalas confused them with the comites rei militaris and the regional magistri, who played just such a role; cf. below, page 76. 5 E.g., A.H.M. Jones (1964) 97; cf., however, Nischer (1923) 2. 6 Zos. 11.34.1; cf. Veg. ERM 1.3 on the necessity of keeping soldiers away from the attractions of the city. 7 Viet. De Caes. 41.12. 8 Joh. Lydus De Mag. 11.10, III.31; according to the latter passage, the measure to remove troops from the frontiers and disperse them over Asia Minor was taken to counter the danger

4

16

The creation of the late Roman army

In fact, what little evidence we have suggests that the development of the Roman army was not all that simple. Unfortunately, we hardly know anything certain about the process of the transformation of the Roman army. When it started, the Roman army must still have looked much like the army of the early Empire, which we like to think is fairly well known to us. When it was complete, the Roman army had taken the form familiar from the pages of the Notitia Dignitatum. How this final situation came into being, however, is impossible to establish with any degree of certainty. Nevertheless, some stages of development can be discerned.

1. The comitatenses

The concept of a field army was not altogether new. Since the Severan period the imperial household had been known as the comitatus. 9 The incessant wars and disruptions that plagued the Roman Empire during most of the third century had ensured that most emperors had spent their short reigns almost entirely on campaign; the logical result must have been that the armies they led in the field, though originally only temporary collections of units from all over the Empire, gradually acquired a more or less permanent character. It is hardly surprising that these semipermanent armies subsequently came to be known as household troops, the comitatus, to be distinguished from the border defence troops, the limitanei. In the Notitia Dignitatum, the field army troops are further subdivided in three classes, the palatini, the comitatenses proper and the pseudocomitatenses. All scholae and auxilia were classed as palatini, as were some infantry legions and cavalry vexillationes. The comitatenses consisted of both legions and vexillationes, while the pseudocomitatenses, with one possible exception, were exclusively legions. 10 The exact origins of this classification are not entirely clear. They seem to be connected with a difference in seniority and status, but not in function: in the Notitia Dignitatum, the palatini always precede the comitatenses, and so presumably enjoyed a higher status, but there is no evidence to suggest that they enjoyed any further

ofusurpations. Cf. also De Mens. 1.27, where Lydus states that Constantine doubled the size of the army; this, too, could be explained if understood to mean that Constantine created two armies, the field army and the limitanei, where previously there had been only one; Nischer (1923) 4. 9 Hoffmann (1969) 2. 10 The exception is the auxiliarii sagittarii of ND Or. Vl.69, apparently an auxilium pseudocomitatense. Note, however, that the entry is missing from the Oxford manuscript of the Notitia. The unit is consistently treated as a legio pseudocomitatensis in Hoffmann (1969), i.a. 10, 16, 73, 410, 493.

Comitatenses and limitanei

17

privileges. 11 The palatini are traditionally regarded as a kind of Guard Corps, an elite within the field army, while the comitatenses formed the regular field army troops 12 ; the pseudocomitatenses - the lowest-ranking field army troops according to their ordering in the Notitia Dignitatum, where they are always listed last, after the legiones comitatenses - are thought to be units transferred from the border troops to the field army without acquiring completely the status belonging to their new position. 13 The palatini and the pseudocomitatenses are first mentioned in a law of 365, which thus provides a terminus ante quern for their institution14 ; but otherwise nothing can be said about when this distinction was first made. In earlier documents, the use of the word comitatenses in the more general sense of "the units from the field armies" does not preclude the existence of the palatini and, perhaps, of the pseudocomitatenses. 15 The title of the palatini seems to allude to their service in the immediate presence of the palace, that is, of the emperor. It does not come as a surprise, therefore, that the emperor's personal guards, the scholae, were also classified as palatini. Mommsen was the first to note that we find the palatine legions predominantly in the eastern praesental armies and in the western field army in Italy, that is, at the immediate disposal of the emperor. 16 This suggests that the palatini as such did not come into existence until the formation of the regional field armies attested in the Notitia Dignitatum; or rather that, since before the organization of the regional field armies all field army troops were kept concentrated around the emperor, there was no need to differentiate between comitatenses and palatini. Before the creation, or development, of regional field armies, all field army troops were, so to speak, palatini. Little is known about the deployment of the comitatenses. Originally, no doubt, they remained usually in the presence of the emperor, and were thus in times of peace stationed in and around the cities where the court, or courts, resided. It seems that unlike the legions of the Principate they no longer had fixed, permanent barracks, but Grosse (1920) 90, 92. Grosse (1920) 92-93. 13 Mommsen (1889) 209, Grosse (1920) 91-92, A.H.M. Jones (1964) 609. Nischer (1923) 31, followed by Varady (1961) 365, offers the same explanation of the name, but advances a different theory about the origins of the pseudocomitatenses. See below, page 45. The lower status of the pseudocomitatenses is confirmed by Cod. Theod. VII.1.18 of 400, where they are put on the same level as riparienses and castriciani, as well as by a law of 365, Cod. Theod. VIII.1.10, in which the pay for the actuarii (paymasters) of the pseudocomitatenses is set at a lower level than that of the actuarii of the palatini and the comitatenses. Cf. A.H.M. Jones (1964) 126. 14 Cod. Theod. VIII.1.10. 15 Hoffmann (1969) 397 f. 16 Mommsen (1889) 226-227; so, too, A.H.M. Jones (1964) 125. 11

12

18

The creation of the late Roman army

were generally billeted on private citizens. Apparently, the privilege of citizens' being relieved of this duty was much sought after .17 On campaign, the same system was used, and the soldiers were billeted on the towns and cities through which the army passed, drawing rations from local army stocks. 18

2. The limitanei

Limitanei milites are first mentioned for the third century; in addition to the passage in Malalas cited above 19 , the word occurs in several passages of the Scriptores Historiae Augustae. In the Pescennius Niger, limitanei are mentioned once, in Egypt; in the Severus Alexander this emperor is credited with the distribution of plots of border land among the soldiers in the frontier districts, to remain theirs if their sons served in the army; and according to the Probus that emperor distributed newlyrecruited Germans among the numeri and the limitanei milites. Finally, the uprising of the mintworkers at Rome under Aurelian was supposedly crushed by riparienses and castriani. 20 Similarly, Festus mentions in his Breviarium that Galerius, after his initial defeat in the Persian war of 298, replenished his army with limitanei Daciae. 21

17 Cod. Theod. VII.8 deals with the billeting of soldiers. Generally, a citizen would be required to provide one-third of his house for billeting (Cod. Theod. VII.8.5 of 398, VIl.8.13 of 422). In theory, all private citizens were required to furnish accommodation for soldiers, but many high officials were partially exempted (Cod. Theod. VIl.8.3 of 384, VII.8.8 of 400/405, VIl.8.14 of 427, VII.8.16 of 435). Senators, for instance, could not be obliged to furnish quarters for troops, according to Cod. Theod. VII.8.1 (361). The quartering of troops could give occasion for religious strife, since although only the homes of private citizens could legally be used for billeting soldiers, it seems that Jewish synagogues were sometimes illegally pressed into service as barracks (Cod. Theod. VII.8.2 of 368/370/373). The houses that were needed as billets were marked by the quartermasters, who wrote on the doorposts the names of the soldiers to be lodged in the house; the unpopularity of the burden of billeting is made clear by Cod. Theod. VII.8.4 (393), which places the illegal removal of these marks, which thus may have been a common phenomenon, on the same level as forgery. 18 Below, page 148. 19 Page 15. 20 SHA, Pescennius Niger VII.7; Sev. Alex. XVIII.58.4; Probus XIV.7; Aurelianus XXXVIII.4. Regarding the last passage one fails to see, however, what riparienses and castriciani were doing in Rome, or whence they had come. On the other hand, a violent uprising like this would have been remembered for a long time, which makes it unlikely that the whole episode described was a complete fabrication of the writer. Cf. Viet., De Caes. 35.6. 21 Festus, Brev. XXV.

Comitatenses and limitanei

19

Thus, limitanei are first mentioned in literary sources referring to the late second or third century, but dating from, at the earliest, the fourth century; in view of the scarcity of third-century source material, however, this might very well be the best that can be hoped for. Unfortunately, since the later Vitae of the SHA in particular are singularly unreliable, these attestations cannot be taken at face value without the support of independent evidence. 22 The only conclusion that can be drawn is that limitanei apparently were a common feature of the army in the fourth century; otherwise, the passages in question would scarcely have been intelligible for the Roman audience at which they were aimed. The passage in Festus is less easily explained. The Breviarium is not particularly unreliable, even though it seems to a certain degree to have utilized the same sources as the Historia Augusta23 ; the passage in question marks "a slight refinement of style", and contains several details not found in any other fourth-century source we possess. 24 It would not seem impossible, therefore, that limitanei did indeed exist before the reign of Constantine. Occasionally we encounter the term ripenses or riparienses, as in the passage of the Vita Aureliani referred to above. 25 As the name clearly indicates, this designation was used for those units stationed along the banks of the Danube and (presumably, for the corresponding chapters from the Notitia Dignitatum have largely been lost) the Rhine. 26 It first appears in a law of Constantine of 325, where the ripenses, comitatenses and protectores are contrasted with the alares and cohortales; with the latter terms presumably are meant the traditional auxiliary border troops, which generally retained the old-style nomenclature familiar from the early Empire. 27 This law provides the earliest securely dated evidence for the existence of specific classes of frontier defence and field army troops. Since it discusses the privileges of veterans from the different classes of troops, it would seem that the term ripenses had the narrower meaning of frontier legiones, perhaps including the frontier cavalry units of equites and cunei, but normally excluded the auxiliary infantry units and cavalry alae. This conclusion seems to be supported by the words used in a law of 375, which inter alia establishes the tax privileges to be enjoyed by those who in ripa per cuneos auxiliaque fuerint constituti. 28 Again, these units are contrasted with those of the field army, the numeri comitatenses; the place of the riparian legions in all this is not clear.

Cf. Chastagnol (1964) 69-70 and the excellent introduction to his edition of the SHA. For the sources of Festus, see Eadie (1967a) 88-98. 24 Eadie (1967a) 96-97; in his commentary on page 148 he expresses no doubts about the veracity of this passage. 25 Page 18, note 19, 20. 26 E.g., ND Or. XXXIX.28. 27 Cod. Theod. VIl.20.4 (325). 28 Cod. Theod. VII.13.7.

22

23

20

The creation of the late Roman army

Although the distinction between comitatenses and limitanei as encountered in the Notitia Dignitatum may not have been formalized until the late third or early fourth century, the trend towards a fixed, permanent frontier defence force can already be discerned much earlier. During the early Empire, when on many frontiers conditions were generally peaceful and major campaigns became rare events, the location of the garrisons of many units, not only of the legions but also, even especially, of the auxiliary alae and cohortes which figured so prominently among the later limitanei, remained unchanged for decades, sometimes even for centuries. 29 It does not seem unreasonable to assume that these units gradually grew attached to their surroundings, and that as many units seldom spent long periods away from their bases, as recruiting became more and more a local affair, as soldiers married into the local population and as veterans settled in the garrison towns that grew up around the fortresses, the ties established between the troops and their garrisons became more fixed and permanent and increasingly hard to sever. 30 As a result, these units will, in practice, have become less and less mobile. This development must have become more marked during the third century, when presumably those soldiers without ties binding them to their homes were the first to be drafted into the vexillationes, the units, formed at that time at an increasing rate, which were eventually to make up the emperors' field armies mentioned earlier. The development towards a static garrison army on the frontiers is easily understandable. The terms "field army" and "frontier garrison army" can be misleading, suggesting in the one case highly mobile armies spending all their time on campaign, and on the other completely static armies never leaving their garrisons. This was hardly the case. At the conclusion of the campaigning season, all field army units returned to their assigned permanent garrisons when the army went into winter quarters, as happened, so Ammianus tells us, after Julian's Gallic campaign of 358: "And after this conclusion of events the soldiers were distributed among their usual posts and Caesar returned to winter quarters" .31 That those quarters were no longer in permanent

Most frontier legions mentioned in the Notitia occupied the same stations as during the early Empire, Mommsen (1889) 201. Cf. Roxan (1976) for those pre-Severan auxiliary units still in existence during the later Empire; many more examples of auxiliary units with a very long life, spent mostly or even exclusively in a single garrison, could easily be found. Cohors I Flavia Cilicum equitata, for example, was in Egypt from 83 until at least 217-218 (CJL XVI 29, CIL III 14147.3-4, BGU II 696, CIL III 6025, AE [1905] 54); ala I Commagenorum in Noricum from 106 until the third century (CIL XVI 52, CIL III 5091, CIL III 5224, CIL III 14368.24, Mitt. 'Zentr. Korn. III FV [1906] 310). 30 The process has long been recognised: H.M.D. Parker (1958) 171, Cheesman (1914) 79, Le Bohec (1990) 101-102, Watson (1969) 141, Varady (1961) 365. 31 AM XVIl.10.10: Quibus hoc modo peractis, disperso per stationes milite consuetas, ad hiberna regressus est Caesar, tr. Rolfe. Although this was a winter campaign it is clear from Ammianus that to conduct a campaign in the winter was highly unusual and in fact this campaign nearly went disastrously wrong. It does not affect the argument as such. 29

Comitatenses and limitanei

21

fortresses or army camps along the frontiers, but in towns and cities, was hardly a new development. Soldiers billeted among the civilians they were supposed to protect had been a common phenomenon in the East even during the Principate. 32 In the third century, eastern cities like Pityunte, Trebizond and Chalcedon all had regular, permanent garrisons, presumably placed in these cities to defend them against the barbarian raids that were so frequent during the third quarter of the third century. 33 The difference in the fourth century was, of course, that by then the troops were no longer there to defend them, at least not in the first place; the towns and cities merely served as convenient logistic bases for the army. Even though the terms "field army" and "frontier garrison army" should not be taken too literally, the comitatenses seem to have been fairly mobile. Although Julian's troops mutinied when they were sent eastwards, Ammianus tells us that in 359 the greater part of the troops of the East served under Constantius II in Illyricum. 34 Note, moreover, that the same troops that had earlier refused to march eastwards readily followed Julian when he rebelled against Constantius II, suggesting a political rather than a social motive for their refusal. When Constantius II started his campaign against Julian, now formally a usurper, in 360, he took his best troops with him, leaving behind his less reliable units. 35 In both cases presumably the comitatenses are meant. And when troops were needed for an expedition to Britannia in 360, several light auxiliary units were chosen from the comitatenses stationed in Gaul. 36 Similarly, it would be wrong to think of the border defence troops as nothing more than static garrisons, unfit for duty in the field. It would seem that in this matter the modem practice of differentiating between men fit for field duty and those considered unfit for service in the field, but still capable of the more tranquil and less arduous task of manning fixed defences, has unduly influenced scholarly opinion, particularly in the final decades of the nineteenth or the first half of the twentieth century. 37 In actual fact, the often repeated statement that from the moment of their institution the limitanei immediately started to decline, and were of no great initial value anyway, does not seem to hold true upon closer examination. 38 Isaac (1990) 157; an impressive amount of evidence from all over the empire was collected by MacMullen (1988) 210-217. 33 Garrisons in eastern cities: Zos. 1.33.1, 1.34.3. 34 AM XVIII.5.2. 35 Lib. Or.12.71; AM XVIII.5.2. 36 AM XX.1.3. 37 E.g., Nischer (1923) 12. 38 The mistake, perhaps excusable in earlier modern literature, can regrettably still be found in the influential works of Luttwak (1976) 188, Ferrill (1986) 46, 49 and MacMullen (1988) 175-176. Interestingly, the same phenomenon can be observed in modern military history: in the opening months of the First World War the Germans used large numbers of supposedly second-class troops (Landwehr) in the front line to great effect, putting many more divisions

32

22

The creation of the late Roman army

The limitanei formed the provinces' first line of defence. Thus, when the Persians invaded Roman Mesopotamia in 354, Ammianus tells us, Mesopotamiae tractus omnes ... praetenturis et stationibus servabantur agrariis, "all the districts of Mesopotamia . . . were defended by frontier guards and country garrisons" .39 However, limitanei were sometimes used for operations in the field, both in their own provinces and on foreign campaigns. In 361 the comes Martianus opposed the rebellious Julian in Thrace with the troops under his command, presumably limitanei, which he had rapidly concentrated from their garrisons all over the province. 40 Similarly, under Valens, frontier defence troops were mobilised for the war against the Goths; and the presence in Julian's expeditionary army of 363 of the dux Osrhoenae, Secundinus, might indicate that frontier defence troops also formed part of that army. This impression is enforced by Ammianus' mention of three cunei equitum among the expeditionary army, considering that cunei are otherwise attested only as limitanei. 41 The regular garrisons of the border provinces were intended to cooperate actively with the field armies in sorting out and defeating invading forces, but occasionally acted entirely on their own - as happened during Julian's campaigns in Gaul in the 350s. 42 The continued attention which border defence received from every new emperor illustrates the importance attached to the limitanei and strongly suggests that they formed a highly significant element in the Empire's defence. One of Julian's first acts as emperor was the reconstruction of the defences of Thrace, where he devoted special attention to the troops along the banks of the Danube, the riparienses. 43 Even as late as the sixth century, the emperor Justinian apparently was sufficiently impressed with their record of service to order the reestablishment of units of limitanei in the reconquered provinces of Africa. 44

in the field than the Allies had expected; see Haythomthwaite (1992) 15, 192-193 and Tuchman (1976) 35. 39 AM XIV.3.2, tr. Rolfe. 40 AM XXI.12.22. Both the fact that Martianus is a comes, not a magister militum, and the fact that the troops had been dispersed all over the province, strongly suggest that limitanei are concerned. The officer commanding the field army of Thrace in 361 was Lucillianus, a magister equitum. Cf. AM XXI.9.5. 41 Lib. Or. 24.38; AM XXIV.1.2.; cf. Brok (1959) 256. Cunei: AM XVI.11.5, which might, however, be an instance of Ammianus' inaccuracy concerning military terminology; cf. XXXI.9.3, where the troops (not just cavalry) are described as congregatos in cuneos. For cunei in general, see below, page 63. 42 Lib. Or. 18.71. 43 AM XXII.7.7. 44 Cod. Just. 1.27.2.

Comitatenses and limitanei

23

C. A New Model Army

During the fourth century several acts of reorganization must have taken place in the Roman army. One of the principal characteristics of the later Roman army, as Ritterling noted, is the frequent brigading of two units, the so-called Doppeltruppe 45 These pairs of units are frequently mentioned in the ancient sources, and can also sometimes be traced in the Notitia. 46 This system, if that is what it was, seems to have stemmed from the policy, pursued by Diocletian but already discernible much earlier in the third century, of having each military province garrisoned by two legions. 47 Because Diocletian's administrative reforms resulted in a much larger number of smaller provinces, the number of legions garrisoning them must also have risen considerably. 48 Although it is very difficult to determine exactly when new legions were raised, it seems probable that the number of legions almost doubled during the period between the reign of Severus and the Tetrarchy. 49 According to the meagre sources at our disposal, Diocletian must be considered the great reformer and rebuilder of administration and army alike. Lactantius' claim that Diocletian quadrupled the size of the army can be dismissed as an exaggeration, but most modem scholars accept that Diocletian must have considerably expanded its numbers. 50 It is difficult to believe that all legions raised by Diocletian were of the traditional 6,000-strong type. In view of the large number of new legions it is quite probable that Diocletian was the first to form legions of much smaller strength; after all, they had smaller territories to protect. 51 11

11

•

Ritterling (1925) 1350; Hoffmann (1969) 11; Scharf (1992) 198. E.g., AM XV.5.30, XVI.12.43, XX.4.20, XX.5.9, XXI.3.2, XXI.13.16, XXII.3.2, XXII.12.6, XXV .6.2-3, XXVI.6.12, XXVI. 7 .13, XXVIl.1.2, XXVII.1.6, XXXI.10.4, XXXI.13.8; Joh. Malalas Chron. XIII.21; Veg. ERM I.17; Julian, Ep. Ath. 283B; Zos. 11.52.2, III.33.2. For the relevant entries in the Notitia Dignitatum see Hoffmann (1969) passim. 47 AlfOldi (1967) 406. 48 Ritterling (1925) 1320, 1349, 1351; H.M.D. Parker (1933) 178, 182. 49 Nischer (1923) 4; H.M.D. Parker (1933) was justifiably sceptical about Nischer's theory postulating the existence of "divisional reserves" but perhaps too critical of his reconstruction of the army at the start of the reign of Diocletian in 284. 50 Mommsen (1889) 209-210, Grosse (1920) 57-58, Nischer (1923) 4, Ritterling (1925) 1350, Varady (1961) 366, A.H.M. Jones (1964) 59-60, 679-680, Luttwak (1976) 177, Ferrill (1983) 41-42. MacMullen (1980) is sceptical of both the expansion of the army in general and of the role Diocletian may have played, perhaps excessively so, but admits an increase in army establishment strength if not in actual numbers. 51 H.M.D. Parker (1933) 187. The legions raised early in Diocletian's reign may still have been of traditional strength; cf. , for instance, AE ( 1980) 777, which seems to refer to the tenth cohort of legio sexta Herculia, and thus suggests that in this period legions still consisted of ten cohorts. 45

46

24

The creation of the late Roman army

There is evidence that, indeed, smaller legions were first formed during Diocletian's reign; for example, the legions that, according to the Notitia Dignitatum, constituted the garrison of one of the Egyptian provinces in the later fourth century were in fact vexillationes of the legions garrisoning Dacia, known to have been in Egypt with Diocletian at the end of the third century. s2 Since Diocletian reorganized the administration of Egypt, we may conclude that he also arranged the garrisons of the new provinces he created. The same phenomenon can be observed in the Chersonnesos, where vexillationes of the legions from the lower Danube are attested during the Tetrarchy. In all probability, they were sent there in the context of a war between the Romans and the Bosporanians, but remained as garrison troops after the conclusion of hostilities.s 3 The fact that in both cases these were vexillationes of frontier legions stationed elsewhere shows that Diocletian regarded these vexillationes as military units, in their own right, which did not necessarily have to rejoin their parent units after the conclusion of a campaign. A second indication of reorganization is provided by the fact that many military units are listed twice in the Notitia Dignitatum. Often, the only difference between the two is their suffix, which may be either seniores or iuniores. The Notitia Dignitatum is not our only source for this epithet; occasionally it occurs in other sources. Ammianus Marcellinus, for example, once records the Tungricani luniores, in connection with the unsuccessful usurpation of Procopius in 365. s4 In the epigraphical sources the suffix figures regularly, although not invariably. Among the famous inscriptions from the late Roman cemetery at Concordia, for instance, twentyseven name units which we know from the Notitia Dignitatum to have had homonyms, and in nineteen cases a suffix is duly added.ss In eight of these inscriptions from Concordia, the survivors honouring the dead soldier did not think it important to add the epithet to the name of his unit. This means that a large percentage of inscriptions was without the suffix, about one third, which suggests that it was the name of the unit, and not the epithet, that was deemed more important. Otherwise, it would be expected that the suffix would be mentioned in each and every instance a unit's name was recorded. Thus, the term iuniores or seniores was apparently not a very important part of the name of a unit: whereas in the early Roman Empire the names of military units were usually quoted in full - which could lead to monstrosities like the ala Augusta Gallorum Petriana bis torquata civium Romanorum miliarias6 - the suffix iuniores or seniores is regularly lacking in the si Ritterling (1925) 1350, 1356; A.H.M. Jones (1964) 680-681. s3 Sarnowski (1990) 858-859. 54 AM XXVI.6.12: Divitenses, Tungricanosque luniores; cf. Tongrecani Seniores, ND Occ.V.148, and Tungrecani Seniores, ND Occ.VIl.6. ss Hoffmann (1963) 22-57; the inscriptions without suffix are his nos. 1 and 2 (schola armaturarum), 5 (equites brachiati), 7 (equites Batavi), 10 (loviani), 11 (Armigeri defensores or propugnatores), 14 (Brachiati) and 25 (Heruli). s6 RIB 1172 (1st century A.D.), CIL XIII 6820 (before Hadrian), 11605, CIL VII 929; the

A New Model Army

25

sources. For example, in the western chapters of the Notitia Dignitatum, units are sometimes designated iuniores or seniores in chapters V and VI, which list all units under the magister peditum and the magister equitum, respectively, while this designation is missing in chapter VII, which shows the geographical distribution of the units, or vice versa. In the western army, according to the Notitia Dignitatum, a total of 105 units had a suffix. Of these, fifty-one are styled seniores, fifty-four iuniores. Two units, the Balistarii51 and the Martenses5 8 , do not bear a suffix, but they have eastern homonyms that do. The western list includes thirty-four regular (i.e. completely homonymous) seniores-iuniores pairs, whereas in four cases there is a second iuniores-unit with a geographical surname (i.e., Gallicani, Britannicam). In one case, that of the equites armigeri, there are two seniores-units. There are thirteen lone seniores; of these, in six cases the iuniores-unit is to be found in the eastern list, whereas in two cases there is in the east a homonym without a suffix. There are eleven lone iuniores; of these, five have in the eastern lists either a senioreshomonym or a homonym without a suffix. Thus, out of 105 units there are only eleven that cannot be paired with a unit bearing the same name. In the eastern lists, only fifty-one units are accompanied by a suffix. Of these, twenty-four are seniores, twenty-seven iuniores. Twelve units did not bear a suffix, but had western homonyms that did. In the east we find only thirteen complete pairs; of the lone iuniores and seniores, twelve form pairs with western homonyms. Two units appear twice in the eastern list. The remaining eleven units are lone seniores or iuniores without homonyms. Fifteen units figure in both lists; however, it is nearly always impossible to say whether the unit concerned has been transferred from one half of the empire to the other, without being deleted from the appropriate list, or whether there were two units with exactly the same name, one in each half of the empire. In six cases there is a pair of units in one half of the empire, and an otherwise homonymous unit without a suffix in the other. Hoffmann developed the theory that these pairs of units originated from one and the same "parent" unit: at a certain moment in the fourth century, several units were split

unit still figures in the Notitia Dignitatum (Occ. XL.45). ND Occ. VIl.97. The unit is missing from chapter V. In chapter VII, it occurs among a group of legiones pseudocomitatenses, however; thus, although it is impossible to classify it with absolute certainty, it may well be a legio pseudocomitatensis, too. 58 ND Occ. V.265 = VII.91. The Martenses were a legio pseudocomitatensis stationed in Gaul. 57

26

The creation of the late Roman army

into halves, each becoming a separate unit. 59 He related this to the division of the Empire between the brothers Valentinian I and Valens at Mediana near Naissus (Nis) in 364, as recorded by Ammianus Marcellinus: they divided between them the general officers commanding the army, and subsequently also the army itself, quibus ita digestis et militares partiti sunt numeri. 60 According to Hoffmann, the division of the Roman army into a western and an eastern part as it is to be found in the Notitia Dignitatum originated then and there; he considered an earlier division, under possibly Constantine or the Tetrarchy, most unlikely since a large reorganization had then only recently been completed. 61 Hoffmann maintained that the units that went to the West with Valentinian, the senior Augustus, were called seniores; those that remained with Valens, the junior brother, iuniores. 62 Hoffmann argued that the army units were divided between Valentinian and Valens because the elite of the army had been used in Julian's Persian campaign: since every elite unit was split in two, the division would thus ensure that both emperors commanded armies of equal quality .63 Independent of Hoffmann, R. Tomlin came to the same conclusion: the Roman army was divided at Naissus in 364 by Valentinian and Valens. 64 Both Hoffmann and Tomlin admitted that some units were divided, while others were named iuniores and seniores at their creation, without being divided, later in the fourth century. Still, they considered this later practice a marginal phenomenon. 65 However, an inscription found in 1970 at Nakolea in Phrygia and published by Th. Drew-Bear in 1977 effectively demolished the theory of "the division of 364" .66 This inscription, securely dated to the year 356, mentions a ducenarius of the numerus loviorum Cornutorum seniorum. As Drew-Bear observed, given that the Cornuti were divided in seniores and iuniores before 356, there is no reason to suppose that the other regiments in the army were not divided until 364. If there was a division, then, the terminus ante quem must surely be the year 356. 67 This means that the division of the army by Valentinian and Valens, as described by Ammianus, is unlikely to have involved a division of individual units into seniores and iuniores. 68 Note, Hoffman (1969) 118. AM XXVI.5.3; Hoffman (1969) 122-124. 61 Hoffmann (1969) 118, 124. 62 Hoffmann (1969) 125. 63 Hoffmann (1969) 126: "[the division] wurde in der deutlichen Absicht einer mi:iglichst gerechten Verteilung der Streitkrafte dergestalt vollzogen, dass die besten Verbande von Palastwache und Reichsarmee in zwei Hiilften zerlegt und in der geschilderten Weise auf die beiden neuen Heere verteilt wurden." 64 Tomlin (1972). 65 "Eine sekundare Erscheinung", Hoffmann (1969) 117-118; Tomlin (1972) 265. 66 Drew-Bear (1977). 67 Drew-Bear (1977) 268. 68 In that case we would have to assume that some units had already been divided before 364, and that the rest were divided at Naissus in that year. There are, however, no indications of 59

60

A New Model Army

27

moreover, that Ammianus does not actually say that the units themselves were divided in 364; he merely says that Valentinian and Valens divided the army, which is just what we would expect. After all, Julian had brought troops from the West for his offensive against the Persians, and so the remnants of the expeditionary army would have to be reorganized in order for each of the brothers to take his own comitatus with him. In an article published in 1991 R. Scharf offered a new hypothesis on the division of the Roman army during the fourth century. 69 From the fact that Ammianus Marcellinus never mentions what must have been a large-scale and drastic operation, he inferred that this operation must have taken place before 353, which is the date of the earliest events recorded in the part of Ammianus' work that has survived. 70 Before 353, there are only a few possible occasions for a division of the army. The division of the Empire among the sons of Constantine in 338, or between Constans and Constantius II after the death of Constantine II in 340, could both be candidates, but the most likely occasion, according to Scharf, was after the bloody battle of Mursa in 351, during the civil war between Constantius II and the usurper Magnentius. To make good the enormous losses on both sides, widely attested in the sources, would have taken a long time; even the contingents sent by Julian to Constantius II in 360 might have been redeployed for this purpose. According to Scharf the division was an attempt to spread evenly among the units of the army the losses sustained at the battle of Mursa. 71 Only one literary source describes the terms seniores and iuniores as being derived from the epithet of a reigning emperor. In two passages from the Byzantine chronicle, the Chronicon Paschale, Gordianus "Senior" and Philippus "Iunior" are both credited with the raising of a unit (ixpdJµoc;) of candidati, which were called seniores and iuniores after their respective eponyms72 and subsequently became the sixth and seventh Scholae Palatinae respectively. However, in view of the inaccuracy common in the Chronicon, it does not seem imperative to accept these statements at face value. In the first place, the Scholae Palatinae in all probability were not formed until the this in the sources. Scharf (1991). 70 Scharf (1991) 267. 71 Scharf (1991) 266-267. 72 CP s.a. 243 (ed. Dindorf p. 501): fopouxvi'>1; Av-yovtJToc; E1roi71tJE11 &pd}µov Twv Ae-yoµf:vwv KOtVOtOaTWV, E-Tr&pac; OtVTOvc; KatT' l:1nAo-y~v, we; TEAEiovc; KOtL EVtJl:leveic; KOtL µe-y&"A71c; ovrac; Ofoc;, &7ro TOV Tfx-yµaToc; Twv AE-yoµicvwv iAt7r7roc; &µa T..avwv ", Wiener Studien 24 (1902), 359-372. Ritterling (1903) - E. Ritterling, "Zurn romischen Heerwesen des ausgehenden 3. Jahrhunderts", in: Festschrift far Otto Hirschfeld (Berlin 1903), 345-349. Ritterling (1925) - E. Ritterling, art. "Legio", in: Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopiidie far Antike und Christendom XII (Berlin 1924-1925), cols. 1186 - 1837. Roman (1993) - Y. Roman (ed.), La Frontiere, Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient 21 (Paris 1993). Roques (1987) - D. Roques, Synesios de Cyrene et la Cyrenaique du Bas-Empire (Paris 1987). Roxan (1976) - M. Roxan, "Pre-Severan auxilia named in the Notitia Dignitatum", in: Goodburn and Bartholomew (1976), 59-76. Sander (1939a)- E. Sander, "Die Germanisierung des romischen Heeres", HZ 160 (1939), 1-34. Sander (1939b) - E. Sander, "Die antiqua ordinatio legionis des Vegetius", Klio 32 (1939), 382-391. Sarnowski (1990) T. Sarnowski, "Die Anfange der spatromischen Militarorganisation des unteren Donauraumes", in: Vetters & Kandler (1990), 855-861. Sarnowski (1993) - T. Sarnowski, "Nova ordinatio im romischen Heer des 3. Jh. und eine neue Primus pilus-Weihung aus Novae in Niedermoesien", ZPE 95 (1993), 197-203. Sayar (1991) - M.H. Sayar, "Equites singulares Augusti in neuen Inschriften aus Anazarbos", EA 17 (1991), 19-39. Scharf (1991) - R. Scharf, "Seniores-iuniores und die Heeresteilung des Jahres 364", ZPE 89 (1991), 265-272. Scharf (1992) - R. Scharf, "Germaniciani und Secundani - ein spatromisches Truppenpaar", Tyche 7 (1992), 197-202. Schenk (1930)- D. Schenk, Flavius Vegetius Renatus. Die Quellen der Epitoma Rei Militaris, Klio Beiheft 22 (Leipzig 1930). Schtirmann (1991)-A. Schtirmann, Griechische Mechanik und antike Gesellschaft. Studien zur staatlichen Forderung einer technischen Wissenschaft (Stuttgart 1991).

Bibliography

277

Seillier (1993) - C. Seillier, "Les Germains dans l'armee romaine tardive en Gaule septentrionale. Le temoignage de l'archeologie", in: Vallet & Kazanski (1993), 187-194. Seston (1955) - W. Seston, "Du comitatus de Diocletien aux comitatenses de Constantin", Historia 4 (1955), 284-296. Sherk (1974)- R.K. Sherk, "Roman Geographical Exploration and Military Maps", ANRW 11.1 (1974), 534-562. Sivan (1985) - H.S. Sivan, "An unedited letter of the Emperor Honorius to the Spanish soldiers", ZPE 61 (1985), 273-287. Smith (1972) - R.E. Smith, "The Army Reforms of Septimius Severus", Historia 21 (1972), 481-500. Speidel (1974)- M.P. Speidel, "Stablesiani. The raising of new cavalry units during the crisis of the Roman Empire", Chiron 4 (1974), 541-546. Speidel (1975) - M.P. Speidel, "The Rise of Ethnic Units in the Roman Imperial Army", ANRW IIl.2 (1975), 202-231. Speidel (1978) - M.P. Speidel, "The Roman Army in Arabia", ANRW II.8 (1978), 687-730. Speidel (1984) - M.P. Speidel, "Cataphractarii clibanarii and the rise of the later Roman mailed cavalry. A gravestone from Claudiopolis in Bithynia", EA 4 (1984), 151-156. Speidel (1987a) - M.P. Speidel, "The Later Roman Field Army and the Guard of the High Empire", La.tomus 46 (1987), 375-379. Speidel (1987b) - M.P. Speidel, "The Roman road to Dumnata (Jawf in Saudi Arabia) and the frontier strategy of praetensione colligare", Historia 36 (1987), 211-221. Speidel (1990)-M.P. Speidel, "The Names of Legionary Centuriae", Arctos XXIV (1990), 135-137. Speidel (1994) - M.P. Speidel, Riding for Caesar. The Roman Emperors' Horse Guards (London 1994). Stefan (1977) - A.-S. Stefan, "Nouvelles recherches de photo-interpretation archeologique concemant la defense da la Scythie Mineure", in: Fitz (1977), 451-465. Szilagyi (1954)- J. Szilagyi, "Les variations des centres de preponderance militaire dans les provinces frontieres de l'empire Romain", AAntHung 2 (1954), 117-219. Teitler (1989) - H.C. Teitler, "Hariomundus en Haldagates. Enkele opmerkingen over barbaren in Romeinse krijgsdienst", La.mpas 22 (1989), 49-58. Thompson (1958) - E.A. Thompson, "Early Germanic Warfare", Past & Present 14 (1958), 18-. Thompson (1965) - E.A. Thompson, The Early Germans (Oxford 1965). Tomlin (1972) - R. Tomlin, "Seniores-iuniores in the late-Roman Field Army", AJPh 93 (1972), 253-278.

278

Bibliography

Treadgold (1995) -W. Treadgold, Byzantium and Its Army, 284-1081 (Stanford, Ca. 1995) Trousset (1984) - P. Trousset, "L'idee de frontiere au Sahara et les donnees archeologiques", in: P. Baduel et alii (eds.), Enjeux sahariens. Table ronde du CRESM, nov. 1981 (Paris 1984), 47-78. Trousset (1993) - P. Trousset, "La frontiere romaine et ses contradictions", in: Roman (1993), 25-33. Tuchman (1976)- B. Tuchman, The Guns of August (New York 1962); (Dutch) tr. A. Alberts, De kanonnen van Augustus (Amsterdam and Brussels 1976). Vallet & Kazanski (1993) - F. Vallet & M. Kazanski (eds.), L'armee romaine et les barbares du Ille au VJie siecle (Rouen 1993). Varady (1961) - L. Varady, "New evidence on some problems of the late Roman military organization", AAntHung 9 (1961), 333-396. Vasic & Kondic (1986)- M. Vasic & V. Kondic, "Le limes romain et paleobyzantin des Portes de Fer", in: Studien zu den Militiirgrenzen Roms 13 (Stuttgart 1986), 542-560. Vetters & Kandler (1990) - H. Vetters & M. Kandler (eds.), Akten des 14. intemationalen Limeskongresses in Camuntum 1986, 2 vols. (Vienna 1990). Vittinghoff (1950)- F. Vittinghoff, "Zur angeblichen Barbarisierung des romischen Heeres durch die Verbande der Numeri", Historia 1 ( 1950), 387-407. Waas (1965) - M. Waas, Germanen im romischen Dienst im 4. Jahrhundert nach Christus (Bonn 1965). Ward (1974) - "The notitia dignitatum", Latomus 33 (1974), 397-434. Wardman (1984) - A.E. Wardman, "Usurpers and internal conflict in the 4th century A.D. ", Historia 33 (1984), 220-237. Warmington (1977) - B.H. Warmington, "Objectives and Strategy in the Persian War of Constantius II", in: Fitz (1977), 509-520. Watson (1969) - G.R. Watson, The Roman Soldier (London 1969). Webster (1969) - G. Webster, The Roman Imperial Army (London 1969; second ed., London 1979). Wheeler (1979)- E.L. Wheeler, "The legion as a phalanx", Chiron 9 (1979), 308318. Wheeler (1993) - E.L. Wheeler, "Methodological Limits and the Mirage of Roman Strategy", Journal of Military History 57 (1993), 7-41, 215-240. Whittaker (1989) - C.R. Whittaker, Les frontieres de ['empire Romain (Besam;:on 1989). Whittaker (1991) - C.R. Whittaker, "Spazio, potere e societa", in: L 'incidenza dell'Antico. Studi in memoria di Ettore Lepore. Atti def Convegno Intemazionale Anacapri 24-28 marzo 1991, 175-186. Whittaker (1993a) - C.R. Whittaker, "Le frontiere imperiali", in: Storia di Roma 111.1, L'eta tardoantica. Crisi e trasformazione (Turin 1993), 369-423.

Bibliography

279

Whittaker (1993b) -----'C.R. Whittaker, "What happens when frontiers come to an end?", in: Frontieres d'empire. Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale de Nemours 1992, Memoires du Musee de Prehistoire d'Ile-de-France 5 (1993), 133-141. Whittaker (1993c) - C.R. Whittaker, "Landlords and warlords in the later Roman Empire", in: Rich & Shipley (1993), 277-302. Whittaker (1994) - C.R. Whittaker, Frontiers of the Roman Empire. A social and economic study (Baltimore and London 1994). Willems (1986) - W.J.H. Willems, Romans and Batavians. A Regional Study in the Dutch East River Area (Amsterdam 1986). Williams (1985) - S. Williams, Diocletian and the Roman recovery (Oxford 1985). Wolfram (1977) - H. Wolfram, "Die Schlacht von Adrianopel", Anz. der osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse 114 (1977), 227-250. Ziegler (1993) - R. Ziegler, Kaiser, Heer und stadtisches Gebiet, Sitzungsber. der osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil. -his. Klasse, Denkschrift 234 (Vienna 1993). Zuckerman (1991) - C. Zuckerman, "The early Byzantine strongholds in eastern Pontus", in: Travaux et Memoires 11 (1991), 527-553. Zuckerman (1993) - C. Zuckerman, "Les «Barbares» romains: au sujet de l'origine des auxilia tetrarchiques", in: Vallet & Kazanski (1993), 17-20. Zuckerman (1994) - C. Zuckerman, "Le Camp de 'lrw{38i~/Sosteos et les Catafractarii", ZPE 100 (1994), 199-202.

General index

ala nova jirma catafractariorum miliaria 35 ala Parthorum 106 ala prima Quad.arum 104 ala Rizena 132 ala tertia Assyriorum 73 Alamanni 70, 71, 80, 81, 101, 113, 147, 149-154, 157, 158, 160, 161, 165, 166, 171, 180, 191, 192, 196, 199, 215, 219-225, 226, 228-233, 241 Alans 190, 195, 196, 199, 203, 241, 251, 265 alares 6, 19 Alatheus 245, 247, 251 Alavivus 235, 237 Alba 4 Albanum 35 Alexander Severus 2, 35, 63, 148, 168 invasion of Persia 168 Alexandria 149, 205 allies 22, 63, 66, 70, 112, 132, 169, 194-196, 234, 244 Alps 32, 104, 108, 123, 125, 130, 150 ambush 208, 226, 231 Amida 65, 66, 70, 73, 79, 134, 135, 154-156, 167, 192 Ammianus and the division of the Roman army in 364 26-28 on the auxilia 54 on artillery 65, 66 on the strength of army units 69-71 on recruitment 85, 86, 96, 100 on barbarian customs 107-109, 111-113

Abrittus 130 Acincenses 36 Acincum 36 actuarii 17, 148 Ad Salices 109, 236, 239 Adrianople 1, 69, 70, 77, 97, 100,102, 106, 113, 115, 140, 147, 157, 162, 163, 171, 185-187, 196, 199, 202, 209, 215, 216, 219, 231, 261, 262 tactical analysis 233-256 Aelianus 70 Aequitius 48, 248, 253 Aesc 71 Aetius 105, 263 Africa 22, 36, 47, 78, 115, 135, 136, 140-142, 144, 153, 159, 177, 193, 199, 200, 203-205 Agathias 48, 76, 188 Agilo 79, 102 Agincourt, battle of 210 agmen quadratus 199, 200, 202 Agri Decumates 113, 130 ala 43, 44, 65, 67, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 111, 258 as limitanei 14, 20, 39, 60, 61, 62, 63 as predecessors of late units 56 as ripenses 19 early Imperial 4-6, 24, 67 formed from cohortes equitatae 38, 61 strength 67, 71, 73-74 ala Augusta Gallorum Petriana 24 ala I Commagenorum 20 ala I Iovia felix 132 ala I Ulpia Dacorum 132 ala Ill Assyriorum 83, 106 281

282

General index

on border defences 125-128 on Mesopotamia 134, 135 on logistics 149-152 on collecting information 154-163, on the Strasbourg campaign 166, 219 ff.

on defensive measures 170 and a Grand Strategy 174, 175 battle descriptions 186 on tactics 189, 191-193, 196-199, 201 on troop strength 207 on the Adrianople campaign 233 ff. use of military terminology 22, 44

Ampsivarii 55 Anglevarii 55 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 71, 286 annona 89, 146, 148, 149, 153 Antae 73 antesignani 189 Anthemius 205 Antioch 136, 147, 168, 235, 239 Aquileia 7, 37 Aquincum 36 Aquitania 149, 150 Arabia 35, 135, 136, 177, 234, 275, 277 Arabs 6, 35, 136, 195, 207 arbalest 199 Arbeia 57 Arbogastes 80 Arcadius 41, 262, 263, 273 archers 35, 47, 62, 65, 189-191, 193-195, 197, 200, 207, 210, 212, 214, 222, 224, 245, 246, 251 see also under sagittarii arcuballista 199 areani 159 Argentoratum 70, 80, 219, 220, 222, 232, 233 Arintheus 102 armaturae 47, 192 Armenia 61, 64, 87, 132, 133, 159, 205

Armigeri defensores 24 Armigeri propugnatores 24 armour 4, 8, 32, 146, 154, 187, 188, 190, 192, 193, 198, 210, 212, 231, 251, 259, 261 army historiography 1-11 division of 26 in the third century 34-40 organization in the fourth century, 13-25 seniores and iuniores in 26-36 establishment strength 75 recruitment 83-94, 96 supposed barbarization of 97, 98-115 deployment during early Empire 121, 122 deployment during later Empire 143 logistics 145-155 intelligence 155-165 tactics 187-219 expeditionary 13, 27, 31 artillery 58, 65, 66, 125, 146, 154, 170, 191, 198, 199, 202, 218, 224, 269, 274 ascarii 54, 143, 54 Honoriani Ascarii seniores 54 ascarii iuniores 143 ascarii seniores 54, 143 Asia Minor 15, 39, 81, 132, 134, 238 Atecotti 55 Athanaric 237, 254, 237 Augst 166, 220, 221 Augustodunum 80 Augustus (emperor) 1, 3, 4, 35, 43, 91, 144, 174, 182, 257, 264 Augustus (imperial title) 3, 26, 107, 123 Aurelian 2, 3, 18, 35, 37, 38, 40, 51, 52, 75, 78, 126, 130, 175, 181, 196, 198, 204, 206, 207, 216, 257

General index

Aureolus 37, 78, 37 aurum tironicum 95, 96 auxilia 4, 5, 7, 14, 16, 39, 41, 43-45, 53-55, 59, 60, 65, 69, 74, 76, 93, 94, 104, 110, 143, 171, 188-194, 201, 212, 214, 215, 217, 224, 228, 242, 258, 261 auxilia palatina 4, 7, 43, 44, 53-56, 59, 65, 69, 74, 76, 101, 104, 107, 108, 171, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 212, 214, 215, 217, 224, 228, 242, 258, 261 auxiliares 39, 58-60 Auxiliares Mesopotameni 207 auxiliarii 16, 54, 60, 194 auxiliarii sagittarii 16, 54, 194 axes 192 baggage 151-153, 189, 201, 202, 221, 228, 243, 244 Bainobaudes 221, 230 balistarii 25, 51, 58, 65, 131, 191, 198, 224 balistarii Dafnenses 65, 191 balistarii iuniores 65, 191 balistarii seniores 65, 191 balistarii Theodosiaci 65, 191 balistarii Theodosiani iuniores 65, 191 Balkans 140, 159, 233, 239, 240 barbarians in the Roman army 8, 32, 84, 87-88, 96-116 strategic problems of invasions by 1314 Roman units with names of 51 in auxilia palatina 53-56 in numeri 57 as allies 66-67 crossing rivers 124-125 economic warfare against 152- 153 logistics 170-171, 202 threat to the Empire 180 fielding mainly infantry 195- 196, 216

283

barbarization 96, 97, 99, 100, 103, 107, 110, 112, 114, 187, 215, 259 Barbatio 78, 80, 81, 166, 204, 220-222, 232 barditus see barritus barritus 99, 108-110, 115, 259 Barzimeres 241 Batavi 24, 46, 55, 56, 62, 104, 106, 171, 192, 215, 224, 225, 228, 246, 253 Batavi iuniores 55 Batavi seniores 55 Bavay 129 Belgica Secunda 64 Belisarius 125, 200, 202, 205, 209, 218 Beroea 241, 242 Bezabde 134, 210 billeting 17-18, 21, 147 Black Sea 131, 132, 161, 241 Bonosus, Flavius 78 Borodino, battle of 169 Bosporanians 131 Bostra 136 bow 29, 189, 190, 197, 198 Brachiati 24, 109, 188, 224, 225, 228 Bremenium 57 bridges 46, 124, 221, 267 bridgeheads 66, 70, 71, 142, 143, 173, 183 Brigetio 36 Brisigavi 55 Britain 56, 57, 63, 64, 71, 78, 144, 154, 159, 267, 268, 272 Britannia 2, 21, 47, 64, 80, 85, 87, 101, 110, 115, 121, 126, 128, 143, 149, 150, 171, 182, 193 Britannicani 25 Britones 56 Brittenburg 130, 150 Bructeri 55 buccellatum 150, 151 bucina 210

284

General index

Bucinobantes 55, 101 bugles 210 Cabyle 243 Callinicum, battle of 209 camps 90, 145, 192, 203, 222, 223, 230,241,243-245,248,267,273,279 candidati 27, 224, 253 Cannae 253 capitatio 93 Cappadocia 203 caput porci 99, 110, 111, 212 Caracalla 181 Carpilio 105, 106 carrobalistae 6S cartography 10, 163, 165 Roman knowledge of 10 castriani 18 castriciani 17, 18, 17 catafractarii 62, 63, 279 cataphractarii 196-198, 207, 21 S, 224, 225' 277, 224 cataphracts 71, 196, 197, 207, 21, 226, 231 cavalry 4, S, 14, 16, 19, 22, 3S-41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 53, 55, S8, 60-64, 68, 71, 73, 74, 76, 78-80, 8S, 87, 88, 90, 106, 110-112, 12S, 134, 152, 162, 189, 191, 194-196, 19S-198,200,201, 203, 207-210, 21S-218, 220, 222, 224-228, 230-232, 242, 243, 245-248, 2SO, 2Sl, 253, 2S4, 2S6, 257, 258, 261, 270, 274, 277 in Gallienus' field army 37 strategic and tactical speed 36 Cecropius 37 Cedrenus 36 Celtae 54, S6, 106, 108, 242 centenarius S2 centuria 52, 65, 213, 277 cetrati 62, 63 Chalcedon 21, 203 cheiroballistra 199

Chersonnesos 24, 131 children 89, 236, 23 7, 263 Chnodomarius 22S, 226, 229, 230 Chronicon Paschale 27, 28, 34, 266, 288 Chrysopolis, battle of 203, 204 Cibalae, battle of 203, 204 Circesium 143, 174, 204 circitor 90 circle 209, 212, 263 civil wars 1, 2, 46, 173, 262, 265 Claudius II 2, 3, 37, 38, 63, 78, 88, 182, 195, 196,204,206-207,265,301 clausurae 141, 27S clibanarii 46, 47, 62, 63, 196-198, 217, 274, 277 cohors 4-6, 14, 20, 23, 38, 39, 43, 44, S2, 55-62, 65, 67, 68, 71, 72, 7S, 76, 87, 132, 193, 194,203, 213,215,258 cohors I Batavorum S5 cohors I Claudia equitata 61, 132 cohors I equitata 61 cohors I Flavia Cilicum equitata 20

cohors II Maurorum miliaria 59 cohors III Batavorum 55 cohors IX Batavorum SS cohors IX Maurorum S9 cohors miliaria Bosporiana 132 cohors prima sagittariorum 193, 194 cohors quarta sagittariorum 193 cohors sagittariorum 193 cohors scutata civium Romanorum 19 cohors sexta sagittariorum 194 cohortales 6, 19 cohortes equitatae 4, 38, 55, 60, 61, 75 conversion into alae 38 cohortes Maurorum 59 Colias 238, 239 column 201, 212, 213, 222, 244, 247

General index comes 22, 56, 57, 70, 71, 84, 101, 142, 153, 155, 161, 162, 177, 178, 191, 207 224, 236, 239, 258 comes domesticorum 56, 101, 178, 239 comes litoris Saxonicum 57 comes rei militaris 15, 103, 161, 186, 267 comitatenses 4-7, 9, 19-21, 34, 36, 37, 42-45, 48, 51, 59, 60, 62, 64, 65, 69, 77, 80, 83, 86, 93, 105, 115, 147, 148, 195, 257, 258 creation of 14 deployment 17 evolution of 16 formed from border units 39 mobility of 21 comitatus 5-7, 16, 27, 31, 32, 38, 40, 44, 147, 154, 195, 203, 257, 277 comites Alani 62 comites catafractarii Buccellarii iuniores 62, 63 comites clibanarii 62, 63 comites sagittarii 62, 70 comites sagittarii Armeni 62 comites sagittarii iuniores 62 comites seniores 46 communication 10, 81, 125, 127, 129, 132, 139, 142, 143, 150, 163, 169, 173, 176, 177, 206, 209, 210, 242, 259 Concangios 57 Concordia 7, 24, 37, 105, 107, 27 conscription 83, 85, 91, 92, 258, 269 consistorium 161, 178, 235 Constans 27, 28, 30, 27, 28, 30 Constantiaci 69 Constantine 3-10, 14-16, 19, 26-28, 32-35, 38-42, 46, 48, 53, 61, 64, 66, 69, 75, 78, 79,81,87,88,90,91,94, 102, 105, 110, 112, 113, 126, 127, 129, 130, 134, 150, 154, 155, 159, 166, 172-174, 176, 180, 195, 204,

285

206, 216, 217, 219, 234, 257, 258, 261, 263, 264 creates field army 15, 34 defensive policy of 15 disbands Imperial Guard 35 instituonalization of field army 41 reorganization of Danubian provinces 40 Constantine II 27 Constantinople 40, 77, 161, 177, 239, 242, 243, 253, 254 Constantius II 14, 21, 27, 28, 30, 31, 66, 79, 80, 85, 86, 88, 98, 100, 104, 107, 109, 110, 124, 125, 127, 130, 134, 146, 147, 149-151, 154, 155, 157, 159, 161, 166, 167, 196, 197, 217-219 containment 28, 33, 66, 76, 109, 148, 165, 167, 172, 177, 233, 240 contubemium 52, 53, 212, 213 Corduene 160, 161, 169 comu 210 Comuti 26, 107, 109, 188, 221, 224, 225, 228, 230, 241 corps 6, 17, 37, 38, 40, 45, 46, 63, 64, 77, 79, 99, 101, 102, 113, 168, 178 Cremona 111 Crimea 131, 206 Crimean War 206 crossbow 58, 191, 199 Ctesiphon 152, 162, 168-170 Cuirassiers 197 cunei equitum 4, 7, 19, 22, 39, 47, 60, 63, 64, 73, 76, 93, 110, 111, 112, 258 in field army 22 cuneus 4, 7, 19, 22, 39, 44, 47, 60, 63, 64, 99, 110-112, 115 cuneus equitum promotorum 63 cuneus equitum scutariorum 47 cuneus equitum secundorum clibanariorum Palmirenorum 63, 62 cuneus Frisionum Aballavensium 63

286

General index

cuneus Frisiorum Ver(covicianorum?) 63

cuneus Frisiorum Vinovensium 63 cursus clabularis 146 cursus publicus 146, 152 customs 98, 99, 107, 115, 259 Cyrenaica 140, 142, 272 Dacia 24, 36, 39, 50, 55, 57, 59, 61, 107, 130, 144, 175, 181, 241 Dagalaifus 102 Dalmatae 37, 38, 63, 64, 195, 198 Damascus 136 Danube 14, 15, 19, 22, 24, 38-40, 58, 60, 121, 124-126, 130, 132, 136, 143, 150, 155, 159-161, 176, 180, 181, 199,218,233-235,237,239-241,243, 245 Daras, battle of (530) 209 darts 189, 190 De Rebus Bellicis 29, 174, 186 Dead Sea 136 Decanus 212 Decima Gemina 36, 37 Decimani 51 Decius 2, 206 decurions 86, 89, 93 defence 4-10, 14, 16, 19-22, 38, 39, 48-50, 60, 65, 66, 81, 86, 88, 97, 100, 117, 118-122, 125, 126, 129, 131, 132, 134, 135, 138-140, 142, 143, 156, 160, 166, 171, 172, 174-176, 182-184,202,228,229,236, 257, 259, 260, 261, 264, 268 defence-in-depth 9, 119, 129, 138, 166, 172, 184 deployment 17, 39, 40, 49, 74, 142, 145, 155, 173, 200, 209, 211-213, 215, 223, 231, 247-249 depots 152, 153, 168 desertion 32, 84, 92, 93, 157, 158, 161, 162, 207' 239 deserts 9, 123, 135, 140, 175, 259

detachments 29, 30, 36, 38, 39, 41, 51, 52, 53, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66-69, 72, 74, 77, 118, 131, 170, 199, 231, 233, 243, 254, 257, 260, 261, 269 Dibaltum 241 Dieuse 70 dilectus 83, 84, 91 Diocletian 24, 28, 32, 35, 38-42, 45, 53,67,68, 73, 75, 79,84,87,88,93, 94, 126, 128, 130-134, 136, 138, 139, 165, 167, 173,174-176, 180,257-259, 261, 264 administrative reforms 23 creates new, smaller legions 34 defensive policy of 15 expansion of army under 23 redistributes field army along frontiers 38 reorganizes frontier defences 14 uses vexillationes independently 41 diplomacy 133, 159, 172, 180 discipline 8, 92, 100, 148, 218, 228, 230 divisional reserves 23 Divitenses 24, 51, 147, 192, 24 Divitia 51 Dobrudja 239 domestici 89, 101, 102 Dominate 115, 160 Doppeltruppe 23 dracones 209 ducenarius 26 duces 6, 15, 22, 37, 57, 62, 64- 65, 77, 93, 103, 127, 134, 156, 160-161, 164, 172, 236, 258 Dumnata 136 Dux Osrhoenae 22 eagles 209 Egypt 6, 15, 18, 20, 24, 50, 58, 64, 73, 88, 106, 139, 140, 149, 155, 156, 183, 193, 204 elastic defence 118

General index

elephants 108, 212 embassies 158, 159, 165 engineers 122, 192 Epistulum Honorii 29 equipment 95, 97, 100, 123, 143, 146, 147, 151, 154, 156, 185, 189, 191, 192,212,218,221,230-232,243 equites 5, 19, 24, 25, 29, 34, 35, 37, 38, 44, 46, 47' 55, 58-64, 67' 70, 73, 76, 80, 132, 134, 193, 195-198, 207, 224, 258, 276 equites armigeri 25 equites Batavi 24 equites brachiati 24 equites Dalmatae 37, 38 equites Mauri 37, 38 equites Promoti 37, 38 equites sagittarii 38 equites singulares Augusti 35 equites stablesiani iuniores 29 equites stablesiani seniores 29 equites armigeri 25 equites Batavi 24, 46, 62 equites brachiati 24 equites catafractarii 62, 63 equites catafractarii Albigenses 62, 63 equites catafractarii Ambianenses 62, 63 equites catafractarii Biturigenses 63, 62 equites catafractarii iuniores 62, 63 equites cataphractarii 207 equites cetrati iuniores 62 equites cetrati seniores 63, 62 equites Dalmatae 37, 38, 63, 64, 198 equites Dalmatae Passerentiaci 63 equites indigenae 70, 134 equites Marcomanni 62 equites Mauri 37, 38, 63, 195 equites Mauri alites 63 equites Mauri feroces 63 equites nono Dalmatae 63 equites octavo Dalmatae 63

287

equites Persae clibanarii 63, 62 equites primi clibanarii Parthi 63, 62 equites primi sagittarii 62 equites primi scutarii 62 equites primi scutarii Orientates 62 equites primo sagittarii 62 equites promoti 31, 38, 46, 61, 63, 198 equites promoti clibanarii 62, 63 equites promoti Illyriciani 61 equites promoti indigenae 61 equites promoti iuniores 63 equites promoti seniores 46, 63 equites quarti clibanarii Parthi 63, 62 equites quarto sagittarii 62 equites quinto Dalmatae 63 equites sagittarii 38, 62-64, 132, 195, 197 equites sagittarii clibanarii 62, 63, 197 equites sagittarii Cordueni 62 equites sagittarii indigenae 195 equites sagittarii seniores 62 equites scutarii 47, 62, 63 equites scutarii Aureliaci 62, 63 equites secundi clibanarii Parthi 62, 63 equites secundi scutarii 62, 63 equites secundi stablesiani 63 equites secundo sagittarii 62 equites sexto Dalmatae 63 equites singulares 35, 46, 55, 276 equites singulares Augusti 46 equites stablesiani 29, 34, 63, 64, 198, 224 equites stablesiani Africani 63 equites stablesiani ltaliciani 63 equites Syri 62 equites tertii stablesiani 63 equites tertio Dalmatae 63 equites tertio sagittarii 62 Eruli 24, 55, 56, 106, 171, 192 Eugenius 80, 254, 262 Euphrates 71, 125, 132, 134-136, 139, 151, 160, 162, 168, 170, 200

288

General index

Eutropius 105

Exculcatores 54 Excursatores 11, 162, 200 expediti 146, 188, 189 Exploratores 58, 193, 196 fabricae 146, 154 Falchovarii 54, 55 familiae 53 Fanner-soldiers 5, 6 Farnobius 241 Ferentarii 54 Festus 18, 19 field army 4, 6-10, 14-17, 19-22, 28, 30-32, 34-41, 43, 45-47, 49, 51, 53, 54,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,65, 66, 68, 69, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79-81, 118, 119, 135, 144, 147, 150, 157, 167, 172, 173, 177, 178, 183, 195, 199,204-206,220,233,240-242,246, 253-258, 260-262 cooperation with border defence troops 22 creation 9 creation of 14 expeditionary 5, 13, 22, 27, 31, 77, 79, 118, 154, 162, 174, 203, 205 nucleus 35 regional field armies 17 role of 14 terminology 20 troop classes in 16 fleet 71, 169, 206 foederati 84 foedus 84 food 96, 146-153, 170, 173, 202, 221, 230, 233, 236, 237, 236, 238, 240, 241, 245, 248, 255, 260 fords 124 foreigners 47, 70, 84, 101-103, 105, 114

formations 30, 37, 41, 99, 107, 110, 111, 115, 191, 193, 195, 196, 200, 199, 208, 210, 213, 214, 217 fortifications 5, 9, 66, 118, 121, 125-130, 135, 136, 139, 140, 144, 167, 170, 172, 173, 174, 176, 178, 182, 192, 259 fortified camps 192 fortified farmsteads 139, 141 fortlets 4, 9, 13, 117, 121, 122, 126, 129, 138, 142, 178, 183 fortresses 13, 15, 20, 21, 62, 70, 71, 118, 119, 123, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 168, 169, 219, 221, 222, 224, 232, 233, 259, 260, 264 forts 4, 9, 49, 117-119, 121, 122, 124-126, 128-130, 137-143, 144, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 170, 172, 178, 182, 183, 199, 221, 258-260 fossatum 127 Franks 88, 98, 103, 143, 147, 151, 180, 219 Fraomarius 101 Frigeridus 111, 239, 241 Frigidus 67, 80, 262 Fritigem 235, 237, 239, 241, 244, 247, 248, 254 frontiers deployment of troops on 13-14, 18-22 strategy of Diocletian and Constantine 15, 257-264 units on 43-44, 47-51, 58, 60, 61, 6366, 68-70, 74 strategy on 81 not simple dividing lines 113-115, 117 development of defences on 118-127 location of 121-128 intelligence and 157, 159, 160 geographical knowledge of 163-165 and a Grand Strategy 172-184 defences adequate 235-236, 254

General index Funditores 51, 191, 194 Gaiso 102 Galerius 5, 18, 38, 79, 87, 133, 162, 204 Galli 56, 71 Gallic Empire 2, 129 Gallicani 25, 29, 54, 191, 194 Gallienus 3, 35-38, 40, 41, 56, 61, 64, 72, 78, 124, 143, 173, 195, 206, 257 forms cavalry reserve 35 his central field army 36 Gaul 21, 22, 25, 36, 58, 59, 70, 71, 78, 80, 81, 87, 90, 102, 104, 105, 115, 125, 126, 129, 130, 149, 153, 154, 166, 171, 173, 191, 219-222, 225, 228, 239, 240, 254 generals 1, 8, 11, 37, 48, 102, 103, 114, 115, 159, 164, 172, 173, 178, 207, 217, 243, 257, 261-263 Gentiles 47, 101, 224, 234 geography 10, 161, 163, 165 Germania 35, 36, 51, 55, 64, 129 Germans 2, 14, 18, 21, 55, 62, 80, 81, 87, 97, 99, 101-103, 105, 106, 107-110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 124, 127, 129, 144, 156, 164, 179, 180, 187, .188, 209, 216, 218, 220-222, 224-232, 242, 246, 259 Gildo 56, 203, 205 Gomoarius 102 Gordian 27, 28, 35, 147 Gordian III 28, 35 Gothi Gentiles 234 Goths 2, 22, 56, 66, 69, 70, 80, 86, 88, 96, 102, 105, 106, 107, 109, 113, 125, 154, 157, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 170, 172, 180, 196, 231, 233-248, 250, 251, 253-256, 262 as allies 195 granaries 9, 118, 130, 260 Grand Strategy 9, 10, 14, 117, 119-121,

289

127, 145, 163, 172, 175, 176, 179, 181, 183, 184, 233, 234, 259, 261, 262 Gratian 44, 56, 69, 88, 94, 101, 157, 163, 187, 233, 239, 241-243, 245, 246, 248, 254, 256 Greuthingi 235, 237, 241, 245 Guard 4, 7, 13, 17, 28, 30, 35, 36, 39, 45, 46, 70, 118, 129, 142, 178, 195, 196, 200, 201, 205, 224, 226, 231, 241, 243, 253, 257 guides 160-162, 164, 165, 168, 175 Habitancium 57 Hadrian 24, 57, 64, 77, 83, 92, 121, 122, 127-129, 159, 161, 174 Hadrian's Wall 57, 64, 121, 122, 127-129, 159, 174 Haemus 239-241 Hariobaudes 160 hastati 212, 213 Hastings, battle of 206 heavy cavalry 47, 64, 196-198, 209, 215, 216, 218, 222, 261 heavy infantry 4, 53, 65, 187-190, 192, 193, 195, 201, 208-210, 212, 214, 216, 217, 232, 246 Hebrus 243 helmets 4, 188, 190, 191, 193, 209, 210 Hengest 71 Herculiani 51, 53 Herodian 35, 123, 146, 156, 168, 174, 266, 291 Hiberi 55 Hiberia 71 High command, reorganization of 5, 7, 40 Hispania 115, 142 Honorius 6, 29, 41, 86, 96, 178, 263 horns 210, 212 horrea 126, 129, 130, 150, 153, 154

290

General index

Housesteads 63 Huns 73, 235, 241, 243 iacula 192 Iller 130 /llyriciani 37, 38, 61, 198, 38 Illyricum 21, 36, 77-80, 111, 146, 154, 205, 241 Imperial Guard 4, 7, 35, 45, 46, 118, 178, 257 infantry 4, 6, 14, 16, 19, 36, 37, 41, 43,44,51,53,54, 56, 58,59,61,65, 68, 69, 72, 76, 78, 79, 89, 111, 112, 152, 171, 187-198, 200, 201, 207, 208-218,222,224-229,231,232,240, 245-247, 251, 253, 257, 261 informers 157, 160 Innocentius 225, 226, 230 Insidiatores 193 intelligence 10, 156, 157, 159, 160, 170, 179, 183, 259 Ioviani 24, 51, 54, 215 Iovii 44, 54, 109, 171, 188 Iovii iuniores 54, 53 Iovii iuniores Gallicani 54, 53 Iovii seniores 54, 53 !saurians 72, 90, 125, 149, 170, 171, 183, 191 Italy 17, 34-36, 45, 78, 79, 81, 90, 105, 110, 112, 115, 123, 125, 146, 147, 154, 166, 173, 185, 202, 205, 220-222, 232, 233, 241, 242, 257 itineraries 164 iuniores 7, 24-31, 33-35, 38, 41, 54, 55, 62, 63, 65, 69, 106, 143, 191, 194, 246 as recruits 28, 29 as designation for a new unit 31, 33 iunior as epithet of emperor 27 predominant in the east 30 relation to age 28 javelin 4, 190, 191 Johannes Lydus 15, 39, 46, 68, 71, 73

on defensive policy of Constantine 15 Jovian 48, 148, 153, 167, 206, 264 Jovinus 171, 199 Julian 14, 20-23, 26, 27, 31, 32, 54, 66, 69-72, 79-81, 85, 88, 100, 102, 104, 105, 107-109, 111, 126, 129, 147, 149-154, 156-162, 166-171, 180, 192, 196, 197, 200, 201, 204-207, 209,210,212,217-228,230-233,261, 264 Julius (magister militum per Orientem) 113 Julius (magister militum per Thraciam?) 161 Julius Africanus 190, 191 Justinian 22, 86, 88, 89, 136, 146 Khabur 134 laager 163, 239, 240, 244, 247, 248, 251 Lactantius 23 Laeti 100, 101, 104, 106 Lambaesis 51, 68 lancea 190, 191, 214 lancearii see lanciarii lanciarii 51, 73, 190, 191, 201, 246, 190, 201, 246, 251 lanciarii Augustenses 191 lanciarii Comaginenses 191 lanciarii Gallicani Honoriani 191 lanciarii iuniores 191 lanciarii Lauriacenses 51, 191 lanciarii Sabarienses 191 lanciarii seniores 191 lanciarii Stobenses 191 Latini 54, 106, 267, 299 Lauriacum 51, 242 Lavatrae 57 legal status 85 legio 4, 16, 23, 25, 35, 36, 51, 58, 65, 67-69, 72, 73, 111, 132, 190, 194, 207, 257 I Adiutrix 36

General index

I Illyrica 73 I ltalica 36 I Minervia 36 I Pontica 132 II Adiutrix 36, 50 II Britannica 69 II Flavia Constantiana 69 II Italica 36, 50 II Parthica 4, 35, 36, 190, 257 II Traiana 73, 190 III Augusta 51, 68 III Diocletiana 73 III Felix 207 III Gallica 73 III Italica 36 IV Flavia 36 V Macedonica 36, 50 VI Herculia 23 VII Claudia 36, 50 VIII Augusta 36 X Gemina 36 XI Claudia 36, 50 XIII Gemina 36, 50 XIV Gemina 36, 50 XV Apollinaris 132 XXII Primigenia 36 XXX Ulpia 36 legio comitatensis 36, 72 legio pseudocomitatensis 16, 25, 36, 58, 65, 69, 194 legio Tzanniorum 72 legionary cavalry 38, 60, 61, 198 legionary infantry 61, 187-192, 197 legiones comitatenses 17, 37, 43, 51, 65, 69 legiones expediti 189 legiones palatinae 36, 43, 48, 51, 54 legiones pseudocomitatenses 25, 43, 51, 59, 65 legions 3-5, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 34, 36, 37, 39-41, 43-45, 48-50,

291

49-53, 56, 58-61, 65-77, 80, 85, 87, 94, 117, 125, 147, 188, 189, 190-192, 195, 201, 203, 213, 215, 224, 228, 243, 244, 257, 258, 261 armament 4 classes 43 number of 4, 23 Lejjun 136, 137, 273 Lentienses 69, 88, 125, 157, 241-243 Levis armatura 47, 188 Licinius 40, 66, 127, 203, 204, 206, 234 light cavalry 35, 47, 62-64, 162, 194-196, 195, 196, 198, 200, 201, 209, 216, 218, 220, 242 light infantry 53, 152, 171, 187-193, 196, 200, 201, 209-212, 214, 217, 224, 226, 228, 231, 232, 240, 261 limes 13, 15, 65, 118, 121, 122, 129, 130, 136-138, 140, 141, 174, 271-275, 278 limes Palaestinae 138, 271 Limigantes 88, 111, 146, 160 limitanei 5, 6, 9, 10, 14-16, 18-22, 34, 41-44, 56, 58-61, 63, 64, 74, 77, 83, 93, 105, 115, 142, 148, 172, 191, 195, 257, 261 creation of 14 degeneration of 8 importance of 22 mobility of 21 operations in the field 22 origin of 18, 19 origins of 20 line 190, 197, 209, 211-212 linear obstacles 141, 142, 177 litus Saxonicum 64 logistics 10, 21, 81, 124, 125, 145-147, 150-153, 165, 168-171, 179, 202, 237, 254, 255, 259 Lucillianus 22, 71 Lupicinus 236-238, 244

292

General index

Liitzen, battle of 206 Lyons 130, 171, 202, 220, 232 magister equitum 6, 22, 25, 62, 77-79, 162, 166, 171, 194, 220, 225, 239, 240, 251, 257, 258 magister equitum praesentalis 77, 78 magister officiorum 48, 146, 178 magister peditum 6, 25, 65, 69, 77-81, 158, 166, 195, 220-222, 232, 239, 242, 257 magister peditum praesentalis 69, 77-80, 166, 220, 242 magistri militum 6, 15, 40, 48, 77-79, 102, 103, 147, 156, 165, 173, 178, 258, 263 magister militum per Orientem 64, 113, 154, 155 magistri praesentales 40, 78, 263 Magnentius 27, 102, 167 Magnus Maxim.us 57, 262 Malalas 14, 15, 18, 23, 153, 158, 162, 168, 174, 175, 201, 204, 206, 218, 253 Malarichus 102 manipuli 52 manpower shortage 32 mansiones 148 manuballista 65, 199 maps 163-165, 179, 208 Marcianopolis 237, 238, 240, 241 Marcomanni (unit) 55, 62 Marcomanni (tribe) 88, 126 Marcus Aurelius 13, 88, 126 marines 58 Marius 189 Mame 124 Marseilles 58 Martenses 25 Martianus 22 Massagetae 200 Mattiaci 56, 106 Mattiaci iuniores 106

Mattiarii 201, 246 mattiobarbuli 189 Mauretania 55, 106, 142, 183 Mauri 31, 35, 37, 38, 41, 56, 58, 59, 63, 195 Mauri Osismiaci 58 Maurice 33, 186 Maxentius 46, 88, 154, 204, 206, 217 Maximian 3, 53 Maximinus 236 Maximinus Thrax 2, 146 Mediana 26 medicus 230 Mediolanum 37 Menapii 51 mensores 164 mercenaries 95, 100, 195, 196, 225 merchants 86, 157, 165 Merobaudes 102, 103, 125, 239 Mesopotamia 22, 36, 59, 80, 134-136, 139, 141, 143, 154, 155, 158, 168, 169, 177, 181, 205 Meuse 126 Milan 36, 37, 147, 220, 257 milites 18, 29, 34, 39, 44, 48, 54, 58-60, 65, 76, 149, 191, 207, 209, 258 milites balistarii 58, 65, 191 milites Fortenses 58 milites iuniores ltalici 34 milites Mauri Osismiaci 58 milites miliarenses 58 milites muni.fices 58 milites muscularii 58 milites nauclarii 58 milites primae flaviae 58 militia 5, 8, 28, 86, 135 Minervii 36 Mintworkers, uprising under Aurelian 18 missile weapons 189-191, 197, 216

General index missiles 189, 192, 193, 210, 212, 217, 231 Moesia 36, 39, 40, 50, 58, 59, 79, 130, 241 Mogontiacum 101 Mons Graupius, battle of 67 mountain ranges 9, 121-123, 175, 259 mu/us centuriatus 52 Mursa, battle of 27, 30, 33, 195, 197, 209 musculi 58 Naissus 26 Nakolea 26, 28, 30, 33, 107, 270 Naples 72 Napoleon 76, 169, 170, 197, 206 Narses 133, 180, 269 nationes l 89 Nauclarii 58 Naulobatos 56 Nebridius 161 Nervii 54, 56, 106, 194 Netherlands 124, 129, 130, 150 Nevitta 102 Nicae 242, 243 Nicopolis 242 Nile 139, 140 Nisibis 134, 135, 166, 167 nomadic tribes 126, 135, 137, 175, 180, 183 Noricum 20, 36, 50, 51, 123 Notitia Dignitatum 4, 5, 7, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23-26, 29, 30, 36-39, 43-45, 48, 49-51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 61-69, 75, 77, 79, 104, 106, 132, 134, 140, 141, 142, 146, 172, 191, 193-195, 199, 207, 258 numeri 14, 18, 19, 26, 44, 57, 58, 64, 65, 75, 83, 93, 104, 189, 193 numerus 26, 44, 55, 57, 101, 189, 234, 243 numerus barcariorum 57, 193

293

numerus barcariorum Tigrisienses 57 numerus Concangiensium 57 numerus exploratorum 55, 57 numerus Maurorum Aurelianorum 57 numerus vigilum 57 Numidia 59 observation posts 137, 171, 183, 259, 260 Octavani 36 onagri 65 Osrhoenian archers 35, 195 oxen 152 Palestine 61, 67, 135-139 Palmyra 2, 38, 136, 147, 198 Pannonia 35, 36, 39, 50, 55, 59, 123, 242 Papa 71 Parthians 2, 134, 164 patrols 136, 142, 159, 173, 259 Persia 2, 70-72, 79, 133, 134, 139, 144, 152, 156, 158, 159, 162, 166-169, 180, 196, 199-202, 204, 219 Persians 22, 27, 71, 79, 85, 88, 101, 124, 125, 134, 135, 155, 158-160, 162, 164, 166-170, 172, 173, 177, 180, 195-197, 199,202,215-218, 234, 239, 264 Pescennius Niger 18, 302 Petulantes 242 Peutinger Table 163 phalanx 190, 212, 216, 278 Philippus Arabs 6, 28, 35 Phrygia 26, 102 Picts 154 pikes 190 pilgrims 157 pili 212, 213 pi/um 190, 191, 214 Pirisabora 111 Pityunte 21

294

General index

planning 119, 120, 135, 145, 146, 149, 157, 163-165, 167, 169, 178, 208, 219, 237, 261 plumbatae 189 Pollentia, battle of 188 Pons Milvius, battle of 35 pontoons 123, 221, 232 Portus Adurni 57 Postumus 36, 37, 88 Potentius 246 praefecti legionis 68, 146 praefectus ripae 49 praepositi 95, 127 praepositi limitis 127, 141 praepositi horreae 148 Praetorian Guard 35, 36, 45, 46, 195 Praetorian prefects 6, 84, 90, 146, 147, 161, 178 Praeventores 70 pre-emptive strikes 143, 160, 172, 176, 178, 183, 261 preclusive defence 117, 118 prima Isauria sagittaria 191 Primani 36, 51, 191, 224, 225, 228 principales 61 Principate 4, 5, 10, 17, 21, 28, 41, 43, 49,52,57,59,60,67,68, 76, 83, 85, 91, 144, 148, 153, 160, 172, 174-176, 178, 179, 181, 183-185, 262 principes 212, 213 Probus 3, 18, 35, 37, 51, 52, 77, 88-90, 112, 126, 146, 147, 150, 192 Procopius (historian) 52, 72, 73, 88, 150, 194, 202, 203, 215 Procopius (usurper) 24, 66-67, 109, 158, 161, 169, 204, 234, 262 Procursatores 196 Profuturus 239, 240 Promoti 63, 246, see also equites

Promoti Propugnatores 24

protectores 19, 84, 101, 102 pseudocomitatenses 16, 17, 25, 36, 43, 45, 48, 51, 59, 65 Psobthis 106 punitive expeditions 14, 172, 176, 178, 180, 261 Quadi 88, 104, 126, 170 quadriburgium 138-140 Quartodecimani 36, 37 Radagaisus 195, 196 Raeti 56 Raetia 29, 34, 36, 50, 55, 80, 171, 193 Raetobarii 55 raids 14, 21, 70, 108, 125, 134, 135, 137, 138, 152, 153, 158, 165, 171, 177, 193, 196, 202, 220, 221, 230, 234, 242, 255, 260 rations 18, 151 Ravenna 205 rebellions, see usurpers recruitment 10, 20, 31, 32, 34, 49, 53, 77, 83-85, 88, 92, 94-96, 97, 113, 115, 185, 235, 237, 258, 264 recruits 8, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 47, 49, 55, 56, 64, 83-89, 88-97, 102, 104-107, 109, 110, 112-115, 146, 154, 187-189, 192, 194, 207, 228, 235, 254, 258, 259 influence of barbarian 8 mutilation of 90-92, 93, 162 privileges of 63 provenance 2, 97, 98, 102, 104-106, 112, 115, 149, 160, 258 Red Sea 136, 140 Reges 224 Regii 225, 228 reports 72, 113, 124, 155-158, 160, 161, 170, 179, 203, 222, 243, 244, 246, 253, 255 reserves 4, 6, 9, 23, 29, 35, 41, 113, 118, 145, 173, 178, 188, 197, 215,

General index

225, 226, 231, 240, 247, 251, 257, 258, 261 Rhine 14, 19, 39, 57-60, 64, 70, 80, 81, 88, 101, 104, 108, 113, 114, 121, 124, 125, 126, 129, 130, 143, 147, 149, 150, 152, 159, 161, 166, 176, 180, 218-222, 224, 225, 229, 230, 233, 242 rhomboid 212 Richomeres 56, 57, 239, 240, 243, 248, 253 Ricimer 205 riparienses 6, 14, 17-19, 22, 39, 86, 93, 257 ripenses see riparienses rivers 134, 143, 149, 156, 169, 173-175, 206, 259 as barriers 121-125 roads 9, 95, 118, 121, 122, 126, 127, 129, 130, 135-144, 148, 153, 156, 162, 164, 171, 173, 175, 176, 177, 183, 192, 196, 198, 201, 220, 221, 235, 247, 253, 260, 277 Rome 1-4, 13, 18, 28, 30, 35, 36, 40, 45,46,64, 84, 97,98, 101, 114, 118, 120, 121, 126, 130, 132-136, 140, 165, 166, 177-181, 183, 190, 195, 199, 215, 216, 218, 234, 253, 258, 261 Romulus Augustulus 264 Roomburg 55 Rossbach, battle of 206 Sabini 54, 106 Sabinianus 79 sagittarii 16, 29, 38, 47, 54, 62-64, 70, 132, 190, 193-195, 197,224,246,248 auxiliarii sagittarii 54, 194 cohors prima sagittariorum 194 cohors sexta sagittariorum 194 comites sagittarii Armeni 62 comites sagittarii iuniores 62 equites primi sagittarii 62

295

equites primo sagittarii 62 equites quarto sagittarii 62 equites sagittarii clibanarii 62 equites sagittarii Cordueni 62 equites sagittarii iuniores 62 equites sagittarii Parthi iuniores 62 equites sagittarii Parthi seniores 62 equites sagittarii seniores 62 equites secundo sagittarii 62 equites tertio sagittarii 62 sagittarii dominici 54, 194 sagittarii Gallicani iuniores 54, 194 sagittarii Gallicani seniores 54, 194 sagittarii lecti 54, 194 sagittarii Nervii 54, 194 sagittarii Nervii Gallicani 54, 194 sagittarii Orientales iuniores 54, 194 sagittarii Orienta/es seniores 54, 194 sagittarii Tungri 54, 194 sagittarii venatores 54, 194 tertii sagittarii Valentis 54, 194 Salii 55, 104 Sallustius 78 Saphrax 245, 247, 251 Saracens 66, 134, 136, 138, 196, 207, 243, 254 Sarmatians 154, 170, 171, 195, 237 Sassanids 2, 30, 118, 133, 136, 144, 156, 159, 166, 176, 177, 179, 180, 190, 191, 212, 216, 218, 264 Satala 132, 205 Saturninus 240, 241, 253 Sauranaces 71 Saxons 71, 197, 206 Scalae Veteres, battle of (538) 209 Schilderhebung 99, 107, 259 schola armaturarum 24, 46 schola scutariorum 46, 48 schola scutariorum clibanariorum 46 schola senior peditum 29 scholae 14, 16, 17, 27, 45-48, 76, 100, 102, 178, 195, 224, 246, 248

296

General index

scholae armaturarum 24, 46 Scholae Palatinae 14, 17, 27, 45, 46, 76, 195, 224, 246, 248 scholares 46-48 scientific frontiers 121, 175 Sclaveni 73 scorched earth tactics 168-170, 202 Scots 154 scouts 58, 60, 69, 158, 160-163, 193, 195, 207, 208, 221, 222, 224, 243-245, 255 scutarii 47, 62, 63, 101, 161, 190, 224, 241, 246, 248 equites primi scutarii 62 equites primi scutarii Orientales 62 equites scutarii (seniores) 62 equites scutarii Aureliaci 62 equites secundi scutarii 62 equites secundi scutarii iuniores 62 scutarii clibanarii 47 scutarii sagittarii 47 scutarius 47 scutum 47, 62, 191, 193 Scythia 39, 40, 50, 118, 130 Scythians 66, 196, 195 Sebastianus 169, 242-244, 253 Secundani Italiciani 36, 51 Secundinus 22 seniores 7, 24-31, 33-35, 38, 41, 46, 54,55,62,63,65, 143, 191, 194,246 as a cadre for new units 31 as designating an old unit 33 as epithet of emperor 27 predominant in the west 30 relation to age 28 Sens 147, 157, 166, 219 Septima Gemina 51 Septimani 36, 69 Septimius Severus 3-5, 35, 43, 63, 67, 75, 84, 181, 202, 257 Serapio 225, 226, 225

Servius Tullius 28 Severus (magister militum) 158, 162, 166, 220, 225, 226, 229 Shapur 136, 160, 167-169, 180 shields 4, 7, 47, 62, 99, 107, 108, 112, 146, 189, 190, 191, 193, 212, 214, 216, 217, 222, 227, 228, 231, 251 siege warfare 65, 70, 111, 118, 135, 145, 152, 155, 156, 166, 167, 169, 171, 199, 215, 253 signals 137, 207, 208-210 Silvanus 98, 102, 103, 204 Singara 134, 135, 160, 218 Sirmium 193, 243 skirmishing 54, 62, 165, 186, 188, 191, 193, 196, 198, 210, 212, 216, 219, 226, 232, 240, 241, 243, 248 slaves 1, 85, 86, 236, 239 sling 189, 190, 209, 214 slingers 191, 193, 194, 210, 214 Sollicinium, battle of 188 Spain 78, 143 spatha 214 spear 190, 191, 212, 214, 223, 231, 251 spies 158-161, 207 square 199, 202, 209, 212 stablesiani 29, 34, 63, 64, 198, 224 standards 86, 92, 186, 209, 210, 218 starvation 172, 233, 234, 236 Stilicho 57, 80, 98, 103, 112, 154, 178, 196, 240, 262, 263 stirrups 197 Strasbourg 11, 109, 129, 219-232 Strata Diocletiana 133, 136 strategy 217, 219, 259-262 historiography 8-10 of Diocletian and Constantine 14 ff. and the dispersal of units 49

General index and the development of regional armies 81 early Imperial, deficiencies of 13, 117-121 Grand Strategy 127, 134, 135, 172-184 and linear obstacles 141 and planning 145 ff. and cartography and geography 163, 165 containment 167 starvation 171-172 in Adrianople campaign 233-234, 254-256 stratores 63 Succession, Diocletian's reorganization of 3 Succi, Pass of 241 Sueridas 238, 239 suffix 7, 24, 25, 30, 31, 33, 34, 246 Superventores 70, 193 supply 9, 32, 64, 75, 83, 84, 91, 94-96, 125, 129, 136, 138, 140, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147-158, 162-165, 168, 169171, 173, 175, 177, 183, 194, 195, 202, 206, 221, 232, 233, 236, 237, 239, 240, 241, 243, 245, 255, 258, 260 Susceptores 148 swords 2, 4, 107, 146, 191, 192, 212, 214, 231, 251 Synesius 140 Syria 15, 134-136, 181, 190 Tacitus (historian) 108, 110, 111, 134, 174, 186 Tacitus (emperor) 3 tactics 11, 53, 97, 110, 115, 168-170, 79, 186-191, 197-199, 202, 208, 215, 216, 217-219, 226, 233, 236, 240, 243, 248, 254-256 Taginae, battle of (552) 194, 215 Taifali 241 terminology 44

297

tertii Augustani 51 tertii sagittarii Valentis 54, 194 Tertiodecimani 36 Tervingi (unit) 55 Tervingi (tribe) 234, 235, 237 testudo 112, 212 Tetrarchy 3, 23, 24, 26, 40, 45, 53, 75, 84, 129, 131, 132, 136, 139, 143, 172, 176, 184 Theodosius 40, 44, 56, 57, 77, 78, 80, 85, 88-91, 102, 106, 126, 131, 140, 152, 153, 159, 171, 199, 246, 254, 256, 262, 263 Thrace 22, 36, 56, 72, 77, 80, 87, 111, 125, 126, 161, 196, 204, 233, 235, 236, 239, 241-244, 246, 254, 256 Thracians 72 Tigris 71, 124, 133, 134, 162, 168, 169, 175, 192 tiro 29 Tongrecani seniores 24 Tongres 129 towers 15, 118, 119, 130, 131, 13, 139, 140, 142, 143, 176, 177, 260 Towns, as logistic bases 21 Traianus (emperor) 91, 118, 156 Traianus (general) 239, 240, 242, 243, 253 training 8, 29, 47, 93, 100, 102, 112, 181, 185, 194, 196, 218, 228, 231, 255, 261 Trapezus 132 travellers 157, 165, 260 Trebizond 21 Tres Tabernae 221, 222 triarii 212, 213, 215 Tribigild 195, 196 tribunes 48, 55, 58, 68, 159, 178, 246, 253 tribuni vacantes 246 Tricamarum, battle of (533) 218 Tricesimani 36

298

General index

Trier 28, 130, 153

triplex acies 224 Tripolitania 68, 141, 153

tuba 210 Tubantes 55 Tungri 56 Tungricani 192 Tungricani iuniores 24 Turin, battle of 216

turma 16, 44, 62, 71, 73, 74, 134, 224 Tzanni 72

Undecimani 36, 51 Ursicinus 78, 79, 154-156 usurpers 1, 2, 6, 8, 16, 21, 24, 27, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 57, 66, 79, 80, 81, 102, 109, 173, 234, 254, 257, 262, 263 Valens 7, 22, 26-32, 56, 66, 69, 71, 80, 86, 88, 89, 91, 93, 94, 96, 109, 131, 154, 157, 159-161, 163, 168, 196, 199, 233-237, 239-248, 253-256, 259 Valentinian I 7, 14, 26-32, 44, 45, 48, 80,88-91,93,94, 101, 103, 126, 129, 151, 152, 153, 158, 174, 175, 199, 259, 263 Valentinian II 103 Valentinianenses iuniores 69 Valeria 39, 50, 59, 64 Valerian 2, 207 Vandals 88 Vegetius 29, 33, 47, 52, 54, 61, 65, 67-69, 86, 87, 89, 91, 94, 95, 109, 111, 135, 146, 149, 152, 156, 158, 160, 164, 170, 171, 186, 187, 189, 190, 192, 194, 197, 199, 201, 207, 209, 210, 212, 214, 215, 218, 245, 248 Velites 189 veterans 19, 20, 28, 29, 32, 33, 80, 84, 86-90, 93, 215, 243, 258 Vetranio 167, 204

vexilla 209 Vexillatio equitum Illyricorum 61 vexillationes 4-6, 16, 36, 37, 41, 43, 49, 51, 55, 61, 62, 64, 68, 69, 71-74, 76, 104, 118, 162, 190, 195, 257, 258, 260 as independent units 24 cavalry 14 in third-century field armies 20 Via nova Traiana 136, 137 Victor (historian) 15, 44, 53, 218, 239, 243 Victor (general) 102, 239, 243, 251, 253 Victores 44, 69, 109, 171, 188 Victores iuniores 69 Vienne 86 vigiles 126, 193 villae 9, 113, 129, 260 Visi 55 voluntary recruitment 83, 84, 92 wagons 151, 152, 188, 239 walls 80, 118, 119, 121, 123, 130, 131, 136, 139, 141-143, 176, 178, 183, 210, 220, 239, 244, 260 warbands 225, 230, 255 warehouses 148, 153, 171 wedge 99, Ill, 112, 209, 212, 225 winter quarters 20, 125, 219, 222, 230, 236, 238 York 3 Zab 160 Zabem 221, 232, 233 Zeno 48, 86 Zenobia 196, 270 Zosinlus 15, 37, 39, 44, 71, 73, 105, 110, 151, 158, 163, 174, 197, 203, 207, 219, 228, 235, 236, 242, 243

Index of sources

XIV.2.13 XIV.2.13-19 XIV.2.19 XIV.2.20 XIV.3.2 XIV.3.3 XIV.4.21 XIV.6.17 XIV.7.9 XIV.10.2 XIV.10.7 XIV.10.8 XIV.10.12-14 XIV.10.16 XIV.11.11 XIV.11.14 XIV.11.15 XIV.11.21 XIV.11.4 XIV.12.2 XIV.12.20 XV.4.9 XV.4.10 XV.4.13 XV.5.6 XV.5.15 XV.5.16 XV.5.30 XV.5.33 XV.10.1-6 XV.12.3 XVl.2.1 XVl.2.1 XVl.2.2

Acta Maximiliani 1.5

87

Julius Africanus, Kestoi 1.1 1.2 1.18

190 202 212

Agathias, Historiae 1.9.3 11.4.10 11.8.1 11.8.4 III.27.6 V.13 V.15 V.22.4

Ammianus

188 205 209 188, 209 212 76 48 188

Marcellinus,

Res

Gestae XIV.1.2 XIV.2 XIV.2.9 XIV.2.10 XIV.2.12

71

171 123 125, 147, 212 44, 62 299

149 147 149 170 22, 134 158 192 201, 209, 215 44 149 157, 161 48, 157 127 147, 220 47 47 147 47 85, 154 224 224 48 44, 48 147, 220 47 98 98, 209 23 46 125 87, 90 86 80 80

300

XVl.2.3 XVl.2.4 XVl.2.5 XVI.2.8 XVl.2.9 XVI.2.10 XVI.2.13 XVl.4.1 XVI.6.2 XVI.7.2 XVI.9.1 XVl.10.8 XVl.11.1 XVl.11.1-2 XVl.11.2 XVI.11.3 XVl.11.4-5 XVI.11.5 XVl.11.5-6 XVl.11.5-6 XVl.11.6 XVl.11.6-7 XVl.11.8 XVl.11.8-9 XVI.11.9 XVI.11.11 XVl.11.12 XVl.11.14 XVI.12 XVI.12.2 XVI.12.3 XVl.12.12 XVl.12.12-13 XVl.12.17 XVI.12.20 XVI.12.21 XVI.12.22 XVl.12.25 XVl.12.26 XVl.12.27 XVI.12.33

Index of sources 161 204, 224 204, 224 151 161 70, 201 209 147, 157, 224 230 220 66 197 219 220 204, 220 80, 166, 219 220 22, 63, 111, 196 171 127 48 220 221 221 53, 193-194 126, 221 221 192, 221 219 70, 157, 204 222, 224 222 192 218 215 224 209, 225 197, 226, 227 225 221 225-226 218

XVl.12.36 44, 210, 226 XVl.12.37-42 216 XVI.12.38 228 XVl.12.39 209 XVI.12.43 23, 188, 224 XVl.12.43-45 228 XVl.12.44 212 XVl.12.45 188, 215, 224 XVl.12.47 228 XVl.12.49 51, 191, 224, 228 XVI.12.5 221 XVI.12.6 191 XVl.12.62 192, 230 XVl.12.63 224, 230 XVl.12.7 209' 224-225 XVl.12.8 222 XVl.12.70 220 XVI.13.3 88 XVll.1.4 70 XVll.1.4-6 152 XVII.1.7 113 XVll.1.11-13 126, 149, 224 XVII.1.14 149 XVIl.6.1 171 XVII.8.1 149, 220, 230 XVII.8.2 145, 150-151 XVII.9 147 XVIl.9.1 126 XVII.9.2-3 150 XVll.10.1 162 XVIl.10.5 47 XVII.10.5-6 161 XVIl.10.9 152 XVII.10.10 20, 154 XVII.11.1 160 XVll.12.1-2 170 XVII.12.6 152 XVll.12.7 171 XVII.13.8 209 XVII.13.9-11 209, 212 XVII.13.10 48 XVIl.13.17 53, 193

Index of sources XVII.13.25 52 XVIl.14.1-3 158 XVIII.1.4 230 XVIII.2.2 160 XVIII.2.3 149-150 XVIII.2.4 149-150 XVIII.2.4 126 XVIII.2.6 54, 192 XVIII.2.11 53, 70, 192, 193 XVIII.2.15 152 XVIII.4.1-2 158 XVIII.4.7 158 XVIIl.5.1-3 155 XVIII.5.2 21, 80, 154 XVIII.5.13 208 XVIIl.6.3 135, 155, 157 XVIII.6.4 154 XVIII.6.8 158 XVIIl.6.16 158 XVIII.6.20-7 .6 160 XVIII. 7. 3-4 170 XVIll.7.6 125, 170 XVIIl.8.2 44, 73, 80, 127, 154 XVIIl.9.1 154, 167 XVIII.9.3 44, 70, 134 XVIII.9.4 70 XVIII.17-18 158 XIX.2.3 212 XIX.2.14 70 XIX.3.1 53, 193 XIX.5.2 66, 199, 224 XIX.6.3 218 XIX.6.7 192, 212 XIX.6.11 70 XIX.11.1-11 160 XIX.11.2 146 XIX.11.7 96 XIX.11.8 188-189 XX.1.3 21, 53, 154, 192-193 XX.3.5 47 XX.4.1 158 XX.4.2 69, 167

301

XX.4.4 XX.4.5 XX.4.10 XX.4.11 XX.4.17 XX.4.20 XX.5.1 XX.5.9 XX.6.8 XX.6.9 XX.7.1 XX.8.1 XX.8.13 XX.10.3 XX.11.5 XX.11.6 XX.11.8 XX.11.17 XX.11.21 XXI.3.1 XXl.3.2 XXl.3.4 XXl.4.8 XXI.6.6 XXI.7.4 XXl.9.5 XXI.9.6 XXI.10.3-4 XXl.10.17 XXl.12.9 XXl.12.15 XXl.12.22 XXl.13.4 XXI.13.7 XXl.13.8 XXl.13.9 XXl.13.16 XXl.16.2-3 XXIl.3.2 XXII.7.7 XXIl.12.2-3 XXII.12.6

32, 104, 108 53 79, 108 146 107 23 209 23 134 135 134 66, 85, 154, 196 101 126 155 192 210, 212 189 188 171 23 207 53, 193 85, 152 53, 193 22 53, 189 241 88 53, 193 218 22 162 189 146 52 23, 53, 201 154 23 22, 126, 150 167 23, 218

302

XXIII.2.7 66, 196 XXIIl.2.8 152 XXIII.3.5 168, 204 XXIIl.3.6 168 XXIII.5.1 66, 136, 175 XXIII.5.2 136, 175 XXIIl.5.15 52 XXIV 152 XXIV.1.1-4 202 XXIV.1.2 22, 162, 200 XXIV.1.3 201 XXIV.1.4 152 XXIV.1.5 151, 189 XXIV.1.6 53, 71 XXIV.1.13 53, 193, 212 XXIV.1.14-15 151 XXIV.2.2 170 XXIV.2.3 170 XXIV.2.8 53, 152, 193 XXIV.2.14 212 XXIV.2.22 151 XXIV.3.1 44, 62, 162, 196 XXIV.3.2 62, 162, 196 XXIV.3.10 124 XXIV.3.12-14 151 XXIV.4.1 170 XXIV.4.3 53, 162 XXIV.4.6-7 152 XXIV.4.9 152 XXIV.5.3 53, 151, 192, 196 XXIV.5.5 53 XXIV.5.8 44 XXIV.5.8-10 62 XXIV.5.10 44 XXIV.5.12 192 XXIV.6.10 53, 188, 210 XXIV.6.4 71 XXIV.6.7 192 XXIV.6.9 53, 192-193, 215 XXIV.7.2 53, 152, 189, 193 XXIV.7.3 158 XXIV.7.5 158

Index of sources XXIV.7.7 XXV.1.5 XXV.1.16 XXV.1.17 XXV.1.19 XXV.3.2 XXV.3.5 XXV.3.6 XXV.4.23 XXV.5.1 XXV.6.2-3 XXV.6.3 XXV.6.7 XXV.6.9 XXV.6.11-12 XXV.6.13-15 XXV.7.3 XXV.7.4 XXV.7.7 XXV.7.14 XXV.8.1 XXV.8.4 XXV.8.5 XXV.8.5-7 XXV.8.13 XXV.9.3 XXV.10.8 XXV.10.9 XXVl.1.4 XXVl.2.3 XXVI.2.11 XXVl.5.3 XXVl.5.14 XXVl.6.11 XXVl.6.12 XXVl.7.5 XXVl.7.13 XXVl.7.15 XXVl.7.17 XXVII.1-2 XXVII.1.1-6 XXVII.1.2

170 201 209 212, 214 72

199 53, 193, 212 224 167 44, 62 23, 188, 209 188 111 44, 201 218 71 71 153 153 153 153 162, 196, 200 152 153, 206 157 167 47 48 48 52 209 26 47 160-161 23-24 161 23, 44 44 108-109 171 192 23, 147

Index of sources XXVIl.1.6 XXVIl.2.5 XXVIl.2.6 XXVIl.2.8 XXVIl.2.9 XXVII.5.1 XXVIl.8 XXVIl.8.3 XXVII.8.7 XXVII.9.6-7 XXVII.10.6 XXVIl.10.7 XXVII.10.8 XXVIl.10.10 XXVIl.10.12 XXVll.10.15 XXVll.12-16 XXVIIl.1.2-4 XXVIIl.2.1 XXVIIl.3.2 XXVIIl.3.7 XXVIIl.3.8 XXVIIl.5.6 XXVIIl.6.5-6 XXVIII.6.15 XXVIII.6.23 XXVIII.9.3 XXIX.1.16 XXIX.4.1 XXIX.4.2 XXIX.4.5 XXIX.4.6 XXIX.4.7 XXIX.5.10 XXIX.5.12 XXIX.5.13 XXIX.5.20 XXIX.5.29 XXIX.5.39 XXIX.5.41

23 192 48 199 218 234 171 56, 85, 154 171 171 80, 146, 154 188, 199 151, 161, 207 207 52, 188, 215 48 188-189 71 192 126 126 126 159, 207 63, 197 153 171 153 36 47 126, 171 158 153, 162, 196 200, 207 152, 218 101 153 189, 210 152 44, 193 204 199 209, 212

303 XXIX.5.48 XXIX.6.2 XXIX.6.11 XXX.1.7 XXX.1.11 XXX.2.6 XXX.3.7 XXX.7.5 XXX.7.6 XXX.7.11 XXX.10.3-6 XXXI.3.1 XXXl.3.8 XXXl.4.1 XXXl.4.4 XXXl.4.5 XXXl.4.6 XXXl.4.8 XXXl.4.9 XXXl.4.9-11 XXXl.4.12 XXXl.4.13 XXXl.5.1-2 XXXl.5.3 XXXl.5.4 XXXl.5.7 XXXl.5.8 XXXl.5.9 XXXl.6.1 XXXI.6.3 XXXl.6.4 XXXl.6.5 XXXI.7.1 XXXI.7.2 XXXI.7.3 XXXl.7.4 XXXl.7.5 XXXl.7.7 XXXl.7.10 XXXl.7.11 XXXl.7.12 XXXl.7.16

191, 212 126 193 71 47, 193 66, 168, 196 101 126 126 108 103 234 235 235 96, 235 236 236 236 236 236 237 237 237 237 237 237, 244 237, 244 236 238 236, 239 171, 239 236, 239 159 80 80, 239 56, 125, 239 239 240 52 109 191, 212, 236 240, 253

Index of sources

304

XXXI.8.1 XXXI.8.2-10 XXXI.8.4 XXXI.8.9 XXXl.9 XXXI.9.3 XXXl.10 XXXI.10.2-3 XXXl.10.4 XXXI.10.5 XXXI.10.6 XXXI.10.11-20 XXXI.10.13 XXXI.10.21 XXXI.11.1 XXXI.11.2 XXXl.11.4 XXXl.11.5 XXXI.11.6 XXXl.12.1 XXXI.12.2 XXXI.12.3 XXXl.12.4 XXXI.12.5 XXXl.12.6 XXXI.12.7 XXXI.12.9 XXXI.12.10 XXXI.12.11 XXXI.12.12 XXXI.12.13 XXXl.12.14 XXXI.12.15 XXXI.12.16 XXXI.12.17 XXXl.13.2 XXXl.13.3 XXXI.13.7 XXXl.13.8 XXXl.13.9

170, 171, 240 241 240 48 241 22, 112 157 241 23, 125, 241 242 101 242 69 241 242 69, 163, 242 243 243 243 86, 154 44, 163, 193 163, 243-244 192, 199, 243 244 244 244 244 244 163, 196, 209 244, 247 209, 247-248 248 248 248 48, 246, 248 251 216, 251 188 188 23, 246 188, 215, 246 253

XXXI.13.12 XXXl.13.14 XXXI.13.15 XXXI.14.18 XXXl.15.4 XXXI.16.4 XXXl.16.5 XXXl.16.7 XXXl.16.8 XXXl.31.1

253 253 253 246 70 111 63, 196, 254 254 113, 235 239

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle Laud Chronicle, s.a.456 Parker Chronicle, s.a.457

71 71

L 'Annee epigraphique 1905 54 1906 116 1939 29 1956 124 1958 239 1958 240 1961 174 1962 255 1967 430 1972 636 1974 723A 1977 806 1978 449 1980 726 1980 777 1983 935 1984 804 1984 805 1984 808 1984 809 1984 825

20

55 29 88 59 59

55 55 131 132 51 89, 107 57

55 23 59 131 131 131 131 89

Index of sources

Anonymus Valesianus 1.5.16 1.5.27 1.6.31

Caesar, 203, 204 66, 203 172

Johannes Antiochenus Frag. 207 Blockley

205

Arrianus, •EKTCX~lr;

KCXTa 'AACXPWP

15 16 17 18 19 20 22 25

212 190, 212 190 190 199 203 224 110

TiX"11 TaKnK?i

19

212

Asclepiodotus, Tix""1 TmmKri 1.3 VII XI.8

47 111 152

Marcus Aurelius, Meditationes 4.49

305

126

De Bello Civile 1.27 1.41 1.42 1.64 1.72 1.79 1.83 11.14 11.30 11.41 III.6 111.55 IIl.74 III.75 111.77 111.79 III.84 IIl.85 111.89 111.92

189 225 189 189, 225 218 189 225 218 218 217 189 225 210 189, 226 189 189 189, 226 189 225 223

De Bello Gallico 1.13 1.24 1.40 1.48 1.49 1.51 11.19 11.20 11.25 III.24 IV.12 IV.14 V.1 V.10 V.34 V.35 VI.5

124 225 218 226 225 225 189 207, 209 213 223 226 225 189 189 217 217 189

306

Vl.40 VIl.18 VII.19 VIl.35 VIl.36 VIl.40 VIl.47-52 VIl.65 VIl.80 VIII.14-17 VIII.17-19 VIII.36

Index of sources 111 226 223 226 226 189 218 226 226 124 226 189

Cassiodorus, Variae X.31

107

Chronicon Paschale

s.a. 243 (501 Dindorf) s.a. 250 (502 Dindorf) s.a. 350 (537 Dindorf)

27 27 134

CIL III III III III III III III III III III III III III III

99 839 3324 3345 3444 3542 3668 3675 5091 5224 6025 10307 10375 10981

35

55 59

55 59 59 59 59 20 20 20 35 59

55

III III III III III

13734 13760 13767 14147.3-4 14368.24 v 4369 v 8773 VI 3637 VII 929 VIII 2482 VIII 2571 VIII 4323 VIII 18057 VIII 20996 VIII 21629 VIII 21668 XI 4085 XI 4787 XIII 4131 XIII 6820 XIII 7250 XIII 7323 XIII 8053 XIII 8825 XIII 11605 XVI 29 XVI 52 XVI 75 XVI 94 XVI 110 XVI 112 XVI 113 XVI 132

127 55 55 20 20 89 89 89 24 72 51 59 51 31 106

55 89 89 28 24 56 35

55 55 24 20 20 61 55

55 55 55 55

Claudianus

Bell. Goth. 400-403 414-423 421-423 473

112 80 125 85, 154

Index of sources 474 580-597

123 188, 196, 209

In Eutr.Il 413 414 417 418 419 420

192 192 192, 196, 200 192 192, 196, 207 207

In Ruf.II 124 125 126 127 128 129 257 258

171, 240 171, 239, 240 171, 239, 240 171, 239 171, 239 171, 239 188 188

Pan. Ill. Con. Hon. Aug. 49-50

189

Pan. IV. Con. Hon. Aug. 344-345

192

Pan. VI. Con. Hon. Aug. 216-219 188, 212 461 44 569-577 197

Codex lustinianus 1.27.2 Vl.21.18 XIl.34.2 XIl.34.3 XII.35.1 XIl.35.7 XII.38.1

22 89 86 86 86 86 151

307 XIl.38.2 XIl.38.4 XIl.38.10 XIl.44.1 XIl.44.2 XIl.44.3 XIl.47.4 XIl.48.1 XIl.48.2 XIl.50.9 XIl.60.2 XIl.60.5

148 148 151 86, 93 85, 86 90 86 90 90 86 86 86

Codex Theodosianus 1.7.1 IV.13.3 IV.13.5 V.6.lA VI.24.2 VIl.1.5 VIl.1.8 VIl.1.10 VIl.1.11 VIl.1.14 VIl.1.18 VIl.2.1 VIl.2.2 VIl.4.1 VIl.4.5 VIl.4.6 VIl.4.7 VIl.4.8 VIl.4.9 VIl.4.14 VIl.4.15 VIl.4.21 VIl.4.22 VIl.4.23 VIl.4.24 VIl.4.25

147 51 143 78 89 87, 90 90 90 89 89 17 85, 86 86 150 150, 151 151 148 152 148 53 148 153 153 147, 153 153 151, 153

308

VIl.4.28 53, 150 VIl.4.32 153 VIl.4.34 47 VIl.5.2 154 VIl.8 147 VIl.8.1 18 VIl.8.2 18 VIl.8.3 18 VIl.8.4 18 VIl.8.5 18 VIl.8.8 18, 147 VIl.8.13 18 VIl.8.14 18 VII.8.16 18 VIl.9.1 147, 153 VIl.9.2 147, 153 VIl.9.3 153 VIl.9.4 153 VIl.13 84 VIl.13.1 29, 84, 85, 86, 89 VIl.13.2 95, 96 VIl.13.3 87 VIl.13.4 90, 91 VIl.13.5 91 VIl.13.6 29, 90, 93 VIl.13.7 19, 29, 64, 93, 94, 95 VIl.13.8 44, 85, 86, 92 VIl.13.9 84, 85 VII.13.10 29, 91 VIl.13.11 85, 92 VIl.13.12 29, 95 VIl.13.13 96 VII.13.14 96 VIl.13.15 29, 95 VIl.13.16 85, 86 VII.13.18 29, 95 VIl.13.20 94 VIl.13.21 92 VIl.15.1 127 VIl.17.1 124, 151 VII.18.2 92 VII.18.4 92

Index of sources VIl.18.6 Vll.18.9 VIl.18.10 VIl.18.14 VII.20.4 VIl.20.12 VII.22.1 VIl.22.2 VIl.22.3 VII.22.4 VII.22.5 VIl.22.6 VIl.22.7 VII.22.8 VIl.22.9 VII.22.10 VIl.22.12 VIII.1.10 VIII.4.4 VIIl.7.13 X.20.11 XIV.17.9 XIV.17.10

92 85, 92 84, 90 92 19, 39 92 90, 91 84, 87, 88, 90 90 88, 90 90, 93 93 90, 93 86, 93 90, 93 90, 93 93 17, 45 93 93 93 46 46

Digestae XLIX.15.4.1-5 XLIX.16.2 XLIX.16.3.9 XLIX.16.4. 7 XLIX.16.4.9 XLIX.16.4.10 XLIX.16.4.12 XLIX.16.4.12-15 XLIX.16.4.15 XLIX.16.8 XLIX.16.11 XLIX.16.14 XLIX.16.16

86 91 93 86 86 83 91 94 93 85, 86 86 93 86

Index of sources Cassius Dio

309

Herodian

Lil.27 LXXV.3.2 LXXVI.6.1 LXXVl.11-12

174 181 203 181

Eunapius Frag. 37 Blockley Frag. 42 Blockley

11.11 11.11.5 Vl.5 VI.7 VIl.1 VIl.2 VIl.8 VIII.I

123 174 168 35 35 156 146 35, 195

234 236 Pseudo-Hyginus, De Munitionibus Castrorum

Eutropius, Breviarium

1 30

212 203

134, 162 218

IX.15 X.6

JG Expositio Gentium

Totius

XVIII XXXVI XU XLIII L LVIII LXVIII

Mundi

et

149 149 87 87 87 87 87

Festus, Breviarium X.15

xxv XXVI XXVIII

105 18, 162, 205 159 151

X.2.1

15155

ILS 531 639 1356 2045 2552 2782 2790 2803 8852 9187A

72 132 31 45 59 45 89 89 55 55

Institutiones Justiniani IX.13

146

Index of sources

310

Jordanes, Getica 131 132 134 135 136 137 141

235 235 236 236, 237 237 237 254, 256

Julianus Ep. Ep. Ep. Ep. Ep. Ep. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or.

71 79, 154 23, 108 150 188 52 105 209 197, 212 197 46 209 197 204

Ath.211D Ath.280D Ath.283B Ath. 286B 11, 389B 80, 396B l.34C-D l.36A l.37A l.37C l.48B 2.57C 2.60A-B 2.77B

Lactantius,

De

mortibus

persecutorum

12

46

Libanius, Orationes 12.44 12.71 15.15-17 18

71 21, 154 147 219

18.37 71, 197 18.45 221 18.49 70, 204, 220, 222, 224 18.50 219, 221 18.51 221 18.52 222 18.53 222 18.54 209, 221, 225 18.56 226 18.58 210, 228 18.59 210, 228 18.60 230 18.68 230 18.69 230 18.70 88 18.71 22 18.94 69 18.95 79 18.96 79 18.164 159, 168 18.169 66, 206 18.205 167 18.206 167, 197 18.207 167 18.214 204 18.231 152, 194 18.239-241 218 18.264 217 18.265 227 18.266 210, 227 24.3 256 24.4 253, 256 24.5 256 24.38 22 59.10 124 59.101 160 59.102 161 59.103 124

Index of sources Livy, Ab urbe condita 1.43 11.50.9 VII.24.7

28 111 111

Joh. Lydus, De Magistrotibus 1.46 11.10 11.24 111.31

44, 68, 71, 224 15, 39, 125, 155 46 15, 40, 125, 155

Joh. Lydus, De Mensibus 1.27

16, 75

Joh. Malalas, Chronographia Vll.13.40 XIl.40 XIII.21 XIII.22 Xlll.23 Xlll.35

15 175 23, 201, 204 153, 158, 162 168, 206, 218 218 253

Mauricius, Strategicon 1.2 11.1 11.4 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.20 IIl.2 111.8

197 202, 215 207 198 33 197 74 74 198

311

XI XII.3 XIIB.4 XllB.6 XllB.8 XllB.9 XIIB.11 XIIB.12 XllB.13 XIIB.16

152, 207, 189, 207, 209,

208 192 188 188 213 213 209 212 209 213

Notitia Dignitatum Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ.

V V .125-43 V.145 V.146 V.147 V.148 V.152 V.153 V.161 V.162 V.163 V.164 V.165 V.166 V.167 V.168 V.170 V.174 V.176 V.177 V.184 V.185 V.186 V.187 V.188 V.190 V.191 V.193

78 78 51, 54 51, 54 51 24 191 36 54,56

55 55, 56, 104 56 56 54, 54, 44, 54, 54, 54,

143 143 188 194 194

55 55, 104 44, 54 44, 69, 188 55, 56, 104

55 55 69

56 54, 194

Index of sources

312

Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ.

Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ.

V.194 V.195 V.197 V.198 V.199 V.200 V.201 V.202 V.205 V.210 V.211 V.212 V.214 V.215 V.216 V.218 V.219 V.221 V.222 V.228 V.234 V.235 V.237 V.241 V.242 V.253 V.259 V.260 V.265 V.268 V.270 V.271 V.273 VI Vl.44 Vl.47 VI.50 Vl.51 Vl.56 Vl.57 VI.58 VI.61

54 54

55 55 55 55 55 55 54, 56

55, 104 54, 56, 194 44, 54 56 44 54, 143

55 56 56 56 50 51 36, 51 36 69 36,69 69 51, 191 191 25 58 56, 193 69 36 62, 78 63 46, 62, 104 62 46, 62, 104 63 63 41, 63, 195 63, 195

Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ.

Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ.

Vl.63 Vl.64 Vl.65 Vl.67 Vl.68 Vl.69 Vl.71 Vl.72 Vl.73 Vl.74 Vl.76 Vl.77 Vl.78 Vl.81 Vl.82 Vl.83 Vl.84 Vl.85 VII VII.3 VII.4 VII.5 VII.6 VII.12 VIl.13 VII.14 VII.15 VII.16 VIl.17 VII.21 VIl.22 VIl.24 VIl.25 VII.27 VIl.28 VIl.31 VIl.38 VII.41 Vll.42 VII.44 VII.45 VII.46

47, 63 63 62 62, 63, 197 62 62 62 62 62 63 63 62 63 47, 63 62, 63 62 62 63 64, 78 51, 54 51, 54 51 24 54, 56

55 55, 56, 104 56 54 44 194 54

55 55 56 36 36, 69

55 54, 194 44, 54 56 54, 194 54

Index of sources Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ.

VIl.48 VII.50 VIl.53 VIl.58 VII.59 VIl.61 Vll.64 VIl.67 VIl.69 Vll.70 VIl.71 VII.72 VII.73 VII.74 VIl.75 VII.76 Vll.78 Vll.79 VIl.81 VIl.82 VII.84 VIl.91 VIl.94 VII.96 VIl.97 VIl.101 VII.103 VIl.107 VIl.108 VIl.110 VIl.119 VIl.120 Vll.121 Vll.123 VIl.126 VIl.128 VIl.129 VIl.132 VIl.134 VIl.136 Vll.137 VII.138

44 56 36 51, 191 191 69 56 55, 104

55 55 69 55, 56, 104 56

55 54, 56, 194 44, 54

55 54, 143 191 191 69 25 58 193 25, 65, 191 36 36, 69 193 36 193 54, 143 54, 143 54, 56

55 69

55 55 36 51 56 56 69

313

Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ.

VII.139 VIl.141 VIl.144 VII.149 VII.150 Vll.154 VII.155 VII.156 VII.160 VIl.163 VIl.164 VIl.167 VIl.169 VII.174 VII.175 VIl.177 VII.180 VII.181 Vll.182 VIl.185 VIl.186 VIl.187 Vll.188 VIl.190 Vll.191 VIl.192 VIl.193 VII.194 VII.195 VIl.197 VII.200 VIL 201 VII.204 VII.207 VIl.208 VIl.209 IX.4-8 IX.16-39 XXVI XXVI.12 XXVIII.13 XXVIll.15

36, 69 54, 56 36, 51 69 69 44, 69 51 69 63 62 63, 195 62, 104 62, 104 63 63 41, 63, 195 62, 63 47, 63 62, 63 62, 63, 197 62 63 62 62 62 62, 104 63 63 47, 62 47, 63 62, 63 47, 62, 63 62 47, 63 62 62 46 146 142 142 57 57

Index of sources

314

Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ.

XXVIIl.16 XXVIIl.17 XXVIII.20 XXVIIl.21 XXXl.18-28 XXXl.29-30 XXXl.31 XXXll.39-43 XXXIl.43 XXXIl.44 XXXll.45 XXXIl.46 XXXII.47 XXXIl.48 XXXIl.49 XXXIll. 31 XXXIIl.46-50 XXXIIl.50 XXXIll.51 XXXIIl.52-57 XXXIV.23 XXXIV.25 XXXIV.26 XXXIV.27 XXXIV.37-41 XXXV.14 XXXV.15 XXXV.16 XXXV.17-19 XXX:V .20 XXXV.21 XXXV.22 XXXV.24 XXXV.32 XXXVIl.17 XXXVII.18 XXXVII.20 XXXVIII. 7 XL.19 XL.20 XL.21 XL.22

4 64 57 57, 193 141 58 141 59 143 50 50 50 50 50 58 195 59 193 36 50 195 50 50 50 50 29, 34 29, 34 29, 34 50 58 50 50

55 57, 193 58 193 58 64

64 64 64

193

Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Occ. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or.

XL.22-31 XL.24 XL.25 XL.45 XL.47 XL.54 XLl.23 XLil.6 XLII.16 XLII.34 XLII.40-41

V V.28 V.29 V.31 V.34 V.36 V.37 V.38 V.39 V.40 V.42 V.43 V.44 V.47 V.49 V.51 V.53 V.54 V.55 V.56 V.58 V.59 V.60 V.61 V.63 VI Vl.30 Vl.32 Vl.35 Vl.36

57 57, 193 57, 193 25 57 64 58, 65, 191 34 58 104 104 40, 155 63 63 62 63 63 63 47, 62 63 63 191 54 54 191 55, 56, 104

55 56 54, 194 54, 194 54, 194

55 55, 104 55 55 44 40, 155 62, 104 63 63 63

Index of sources Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or.

Vl.37 VI.38 Vl.39 Vl.40 Vl.45 Vl.46 Vl.51 Vl.53 Vl.54 Vl.55 Vl.56 Vl.58 Vl.59 Vl.60 Vl.61 Vl.69 VIl.25 VIl.27 VII.28 VII.29 VIl.30 VIl.31 VIl.32 VIl.33 VII.34 VIl.39 VIl.42 VIl.43 VII.52 VIl.56 VIl.57 VIIl.29 VIIl.30 VIIl.31 VIIl.35 VIII.38 VIIl.39 VIIl.44 VIII.46 VIIl.47 VIII.49 IX.19

63 47, 62 47, 62 63 36, 51 36, 51

55 56 54, 194 54, 194 54, 194 55, 101 54, 55 56

55 16, 54, 194 63 63 47, 62 63 63 63 63 62 63, 64 36 36, 37 65, 191 51, 191, 194 191 65, 191 63 62 62 51 36 36, 37 191 65, 191 65, 191 72 62

315

Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or. Or.

IX.24 IX.25 IX.27 IX.36 IX.37 IX.38 IX.47 XI.4-10 XI.18-39 XVIIl.18 XXVII.19 XXVIIl.14 XXVIII.15 XXVIII.40 XXXl.23 XXXl.24 XXXl.31 XXXI.33 XXXI.34 XXXl.35 XXXl.38 XXXI.56 XXXI.59 XXXl.66 XXXIl.18 XXXIII XXXIIl.26 XXXIV.22 XXXIV .43 XXXV.16 XXXVI XXXVI.20 XXXVI.23-28 XXXVl.30 XXXVII.17 XXXVIII XXXVIII.12 XXXVIIl.13 XXXVIIl.16 XXXVIII.17 XXXVIIl.23 XXXVIIl.29

54, 55, 143 54, 143 54, 194 191 36 191 65, 191 46 146 50 50 50 50 193, 194 64, 195 64 50 50 50 58 50 104 193 194 195 64 195 195 61 195 134 195 135 36 41, 195 64 132 132 132 132 132 132

316

Or. XXXVIIl.31 Or. XXXVIII. 36 Or. XXXVIII.38 Or. XXXIX.20 Or. XXXIX.21 Or. XXXIX.28 Or. XXXIX.29-35 Or. XL.18-28 Or. XL.22 Or. XL.28 Or. XL.30 Or. XL.31 Or. XL.32 Or. XL.33 Or. XL.34 Or. XL.35 Or. XLl.21-28 Or. XLl.29-39 Or. XLl.31 Or. XLl.32 Or. XLl.34 Or. XLl.35 Or. XLl.37 Or. XLil.22-28 Or. XLII.29 Or. XLII.31 Or. XLil.32 Or. XLil.33 Or. XLII.34 Or. XLil.35 Or. XLil.36 Or. XLII.37 Or. XLII.38 Or. XLil.39

Index of sources

132 61, 132 132 58 193 19 50 58 58 58 50 50 50 50 50 50 59 58 50 50 58, 193 58, 193 58, 193 59 58, 193 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Olympiodorus Frag. 10 Blockley

205

Onasander, ErpaT1fYtKo