Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T02:36:27.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Legions of Diocletian and Constantine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

H. M. D. Parker
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In JRS xiii, 1923 (pp. 1–55), Dr. E. Nischer published a paper on ‘The Army Reforms of Diocletian and Constantine,’ in which, in opposition to the opinions of other scholars, including Mommsen, Seeck and Grosse, he attempted to prove that a proper appreciation of the reforms of the two Emperors could only be attained if a sharp distinction were drawn between their respective policies. According to this theory, Diocletian is the augmenter, Constantine the reformer, of the Roman military system, in the sense that the former doubled the number of existing legions, while the latter created the field-army of palatini and comitatenses by disbanding some of the frontier-legions and withdrawing detachments from others to form independent units in his new mobile army. In a note in JRS xv, 1925, Professor Norman Baynes suggested some general grounds for caution in the acceptance of Nischer's opinions, and it is the purpose of this paper to examine more closely the latter's arguments and, while rejecting part of his conclusions, to consider what inferences may safely be drawn from the evidence which we possess for the work of Diocletian and Constantine.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , 1933 , pp. 175 - 189
Copyright
Copyright ©H. M. D. Parker 1933. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The same theory with some modifications appears in Nischer's contribution to Kromayer-Veith, , Heerwesen und Kriegführung der Griechen und Römer, pp. 482–5 and 568–572Google Scholar.

2 Pp. 201–4. I wish here to acknowledge with gratitude the help which Professor Baynes has given me in the writing of this paper. On many points of detail I have received from him most valuable advice and criticism.

3 Legions which bear the names of post-Constantinian emperors (e.g. I–II Valentinianae) are, of course, omitted from the discussion.

4 Hdn. vi, 3, 1.

5 SHA Max. 5, 5.

6 ILS 1173.

7 Cf. the recruiting of I, II, III ltalicae (H. M. D. Parker, The Roman Legions, pp. 98 and 116).

8 Or. vii, 54.

9 Zos. 1, 52, 3; ILS 8875; Ritterling in Festschrift für O. Hirschfeld (1903), pp. 345–9, at p. 347. The new legion in Arabia was so numbered as to continue the numerical sequence.

10 Or. vii, 20=56.

11 Or. xxix, 7–8.

12 SHA Prob. 16, 5, and 17, 1; Ritterling in P-W xii, col. 1348.

13 In Kromayer-Veith, , Heerwesen und Kriegführung der Griechen und Römer, p. 503, n. 13Google Scholar. Nischer admits the possibility of IV (Martia) having been raised by Severus Alexander.

14 Or. viii, 51.

15 ILS 1176.

16 ii, 34, 1.

17 CIL iii, 205 of A.D. 198; Hasebroek, , Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Septimius Severus, pp. 66–70Google Scholar. The Syrian legions were thus reduced from three to two (IV Scythica and XVI Flavia). Cf. ILS 2288.

18 ILS 2375.

19 CIL iii, 4803, from Virunum; cf. P-W xii, coll. 1434–5.

20 ILS 639.

21 Arabia, Augusta Libanensis, Palaestina, Phoenice, Syria Coele, Augusta Euphratensis, Mesopotamia, Osroene, Cappadocia, Pontus Polemoniacus, Armenia Minor. (Seeck, op. cit., pp 247–8.)

22 III Cyrenaïca, IV Martia, IV Italica, VI Ferrata, X Fretensis, I Illyricorum, III Gallica, IV Scythica, XVI Flavia, I–II–III Parthicae, XII Fulminata, XV Apollinaris.

23 Occ. v, 257 = vii, 34; Occ. v, 258 = vii, 60.

24 Occ. v, 248 = vii, 35

25 Seeck op. cit., p. 250.

26 P-W xii, col. 1405.

27 Or. viii, 40.

28 Or. viii, 41.

29 Or. vii, 44.

30 Or. vii, 45; xxxi, 32.

31 Occ. v, 249 = vii, 146.

32 Occ. v, 250 = vii, 147.

33 Occ. v, 251 = vii, 148.

34 Occ. v, 253 = vii, 149.

35 Occ. v, 264 = vii, 90.

36 Occ. v, 269 [Metis=Martis (Seeck)‘ =vii, 95: cf. Nischer, p. 5, note, who prefers to read Mettis.

37 Occ. v, 252 = vii, 150 (Constantinaci). Nischer however, op. cit., p. 28, denies Seeck's identification (op. cit., p. 126).

38 Stein, E., Geschichte des spätrömischen Reiches i, pp. 139 and 197Google Scholar.

39 ix, 23: ‘ea tamen occasione ordinavit [i.e. Diocletianus] provide multa et disposuit, quae ad nostram aetatem manent.’

40 P. Oxy. 43; Wilcken, Grundzüge i, 362. P-W xii, coll. 1359–60.

41 Or. xxxi, 31–39.

42 Or. xxviii, 18–19, 14–15

43 Or. vi, 45–46. For this adjectival form of designation cf. Tac. Hist. iii, 24.

44 Or. vii, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45.

45 Or. viii, 36, 37, 40, 41.

46 Or. viii, 38, 39.

47 Or. ix, 35.

48 Occ. v, 153 = vii, 28.

49 Occ. v, 235 = vii, 144; v, 237 = vii, 53; v, 238 = vii, 54; v, 241 = vii, 84; v, 249 = vii, 146; v, 250 = vii, 147; v, 251 = vii, 148; v, 253 = vii, 149; v, 254 = vii, 151; v, 248 = vii, 35.

50 Occ. v, 234 = vii, 134.

51 See above, p. I8I (P. Oxy. 43).

52 de mortibus persecutorum 7.

53 ii, 34.

54 de Caesaribus 41, 12, ‘simul novando militiae ordine.’

55 ILS 2045.

56 ILS 2782.

57 ILS 2781.

58 Victor, de Caesaribus 39, 47; Grosse, Römische Militärgeschichte, pp. 58–9.

59 ἒκταξις κατʹ Άλανῶν 16–17.

60 Or. v, 42–44.

61 These Palatine legions may be in origin detachments from I jovia and II Herculia, but were more probably formed out of auxiliary cohorts from Illyricum: cf. Vegetius i, 17 and Jullian, ‘La carrière d'un soldat au quatrième siècle’ in Bull. epig. iv (1884), pp. 1–12.Google Scholar

62 e.g. CIL v, 895, 896 (ILS 2332); P-W xii, col. 1700.

63 CIL v, 893.

64 Or. vi, 45–46; Occ. v, 153 = vii, 28.

65 Or. v, 42–44; Or. vi, 47; Occ. v, 145–6 = vii, 3–4.

66 Festschrift für O. Hirschfeld, pp. 345–9.

67 Zosimus i, 52, 3–4 and cf. 1, 40, 1–2.

68 Cedrenus i, 454 (ed. Bonn)—Ταλλιῆνος…πρῶτος ίππέων τάγματα κατέστησε

69 ILS 569.

70 Zosimus i, 52, 3–4.

71 Or. xxxii–xxxvii; cf. Ritterling loc. cit. p. 346.

72 The equites in a legion were principales, i.e. they had been ‘promoted’ from the rank of milites gregarii (ILS 2332–3, CIL vi, 3409).

73 ILS 569.

74 ‘veteranis ita demum honorum et munerum personalium vacatio iure conceditur, si post vicesimum annum militiae quam in legione vel vexillatione militaverunt honestam vel causariam missionem consecuti esse ostendantur’ (Cod. Just. x, 55, 3: cf. ibid. vii, 64, 9: Stein, E., Geschichte des spätrömischen Reiches 1, p. 92, n. 1Google Scholar).

75 P. Grenf. 11, 110, 1.

76 P. Grenf. 11, 74, 1–2.

77 P. Oxy. 43, col. 11, 24–28 and col. 1, 15.

78 ILS 664.

79 Notitia Dignitatum, Or. v, 28; vi, 28; Occ. vi, 43 and 44.

80 Cf. aurei of Diocletian and his colleagues with the legend ‘Comitatus Augg.’ and the mounted Dioscuri (Cohen vi2, 417, no. 23 and vi2, 497, nos. 39 and 40: P-W xii, col. 1358, and P-W iv, col. 622).