Gripping Beast Plastic Late Romans

[valentinianvictor]

Vegetius' 'Epitome' is full of conundrum's. First of all, the date it was written. Most historians now think it was dedicated to one of the Emperor's living between 400AD and 440AD, which would have encompassed the reigns of Valentinian II, Arcadius, Honorius and Valentinian III. I personally feel that Valentinian III is the more likely candidate because of the statement Vegetius makes about the Roman's making improvements to their cavalry after the manner of the Goths, Huns and Alans. The Goth's had been employed by the Romans from at least 323AD, the Alans from the reign of Gratian, and the Huns from no earlier than 400AD, more likely from 409AD when 10,000 were stated as being deployed in the Western Empire. So a date after 400AD and before 426AD seems appropriate

The legion Vegetius described is a hybrid of earlier organisation with the troops armed and armoured in contemporary styles. Again, this would indicate that the troops when Vegetius wrote did have access to a full panoply but for some reason did not wear it.

The pen & ink drawings of the Column of Theodosius and the Column of Arcadius show the troops on the march, The infantry were in the main shown wearing their body armour and helmets and carrying shields, and a spear but there is also depictions of the baggage camels and mules carrying spears and shields as well.

[Darklinger]

Reality - messy, sweaty, confusing, tiring, against  gradually overwhelming odds, sometimes ill-prepared and surprised and far from ideal. Against official depictions by sculptors who hadn't necessarily even seen field conditions or experienced the difficulties of the soldiers, carrying out jobbing commissions for the state. Perhaps defeat actually lay in the interstices between this official vision of what had and was supposed still to happen, and those conditions - and the suitability of the equipment for them, sometimes?

[Patrick Waterson]

A perceptive comment - and one which Vegetius seems to underwrite.

[Patrick Waterson]

Vegetius' 'Epitome' is full of conundrum's. First of all, the date it was written. Most historians now think it was dedicated to one of the Emperor's living between 400AD and 440AD, which would have encompassed the reigns of Valentinian II, Arcadius, Honorius and Valentinian III. I personally feel that Valentinian III is the more likely candidate because of the statement Vegetius makes about the Roman's making improvements to their cavalry after the manner of the Goths, Huns and Alans.

Pinning down Vegetius time-wise is indeed a somewhat exhausting exercise.  A serious weakness of the above hypothesis is that none of those mentioned could, even with the greatest degree of imagination, be described as 'invincible' or have the following applied to them:

"Such a continued series of victories and triumphs proved incontestably Your Majesty's full and perfect knowledge of the military discipline of the ancients." - Preface, Book II.

This could only apply to Valentinian I or Theodosius.  That said, one does wonder whether it would really have been necessary to explain to either the difference between legions and auxiliaries, or whether this was just Vegetius defining basics for the sake of posterity.

Valentinian II died in AD 392, having begin his 'reign' in AD 375 at the age of four.  He had not a single victory or triumph to his name, which is a pity because time-wise he is a Valentinian in about the right place.

The Goths had been employed by the Romans from at least 323AD, the Alans from the reign of Gratian, and the Huns from no earlier than 400AD, more likely from 409AD when 10,000 were stated as being deployed in the Western Empire. So a date after 400AD and before 426AD seems appropriate

While it would seem that Huns were comparatively late entering Roman service, they and their methods of fighting were by no means unknown from AD 376 onwards, not least from full descriptions available from the Alans in Imperial service.

While Vegetius may originally have intended the work for Valentinian I, the mention of Gratian in the following portion points more to completion or re-issue during the reign of Theodosius:

"The manner of arming the troops comes next under consideration. But the method of the ancients no longer is followed. For though after the example of the Goths, the Alans and the Huns, we have made some improvements in the arms of the cavalry, yet it is plain the infantry are entirely defenseless. From the foundation of the city till the reign of the Emperor Gratian, the foot wore cuirasses and helmets. But negligence and sloth having by degrees introduced a total relaxation of discipline, the soldiers began to think their armor too heavy, as they seldom put it on. They first requested leave from the Emperor to lay aside the cuirass and afterwards the helmet." - Epitoma Rei Militaris I.19

However it was Caracalla and not Gratian who first permitted legionaries to 'lay aside the cuirass and afterwards the helmet'.  Unless Vegetius has made a serious mistake here, it interestingly suggests that at some point in the 3rd century AD the wearing of armour had been re-established as the norm, Aurelian being an obvious candidate for this, and then again lapsed in the late 4th century AD under Gratian - and, perforce, Valens.

"In consequence of this, our troops in their engagements with the Goths were often overwhelmed with their showers of arrows. Nor was the necessity of obliging the infantry to resume their cuirasses and helmets discovered, notwithstanding such repeated defeats, which brought on the destruction of so many great cities." - idem

Goths were first used by Licinius in AD 323, though apparently without overwhelming anyone.  From AD 406 Roman troops faced a much wider variety of opponents than just Goths.  Yet Vegetius makes no reference to Vandals, Suebi or to the success against Radagasius, and these omissions need to be explained if one ascribes Vegetius' work to a date later than Theodosius.  For that matter, another glaring omission is any reference to the division of the Empire.  All of this suggests compilation, or completion, between AD 383 and 390-ish (pre-Frigidus).  The work could still have been, tongue-in-cheek, dedicated to Valentinian II.

The legion Vegetius described is a hybrid of earlier organisation with the troops armed and armoured in contemporary styles. Again, this would indicate that the troops when Vegetius wrote did have access to a full panoply but for some reason did not wear it.

I think we agree on this point, which seems to be the essential one in the whole business.

The pen & ink drawings of the Column of Theodosius and the Column of Arcadius show the troops on the march, The infantry were in the main shown wearing their body armour and helmets and carrying shields, and a spear but there is also depictions of the baggage camels and mules carrying spears and shields as well.

This would be consistent with Theodosius taking Vegetius' advice and making compulsory the wearing of armour - and 'in the main' being obeyed.  It would not be consistent with Vegetius dedicating anything to Arcadius or a later Emperor, given the implicit assumption that infantry had habitually not worn their armour from Gratian's day to the time of writing.