Perge Fragments translation published

[valentinianvictor]

Vegetius tells us that his Epitome was written using other manuals, now sadly lost to us, including one by Cato.

Interestingly Robert Vermatt put a comparison on RAT of Vegetius, Anastasius and Lydus's ranking structure and its very interesting to see the comparisons- http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-military-history-a-archaeology/293969-late-roman-army-grade-rank-list-under-anastasius.html?start=30

[Patrick Waterson]

Interestingly Robert Vermatt put a comparison on RAT of Vegetius, Anastasius and Lydus's ranking structure and its very interesting to see the comparisons- http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-military-history-a-archaeology/293969-late-roman-army-grade-rank-list-under-anastasius.html?start=30

Be warned: "This attachment is hidden for guests. Please log in or register to see it."

[valentinianvictor]

Interestingly Robert Vermatt put a comparison on RAT of Vegetius, Anastasius and Lydus's ranking structure and its very interesting to see the comparisons- http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-military-history-a-archaeology/293969-late-roman-army-grade-rank-list-under-anastasius.html?start=30

Be warned: "This attachment is hidden for guests. Please log in or register to see it."

Its easy to sign up to the RAT forums Patrick, then your be able to see the attachment.

[aligern]

Given  the Perge Fragments are genuine etc. which I have no reason to doubt, then why, if organisations were standard throughout the Empire ,would it be necessary to publish such a document / inscription. However, if organisations are irregular and disputable then I can see its point.nThat would also fit with a sutuation in which there was no regular standard establishment...or maybe several pissible ones. As the standard Roman method of sorting legal disputes out was to refer them up to the emperor and expect a ruling. The  judgement would then descend down and be promulgated.
Interestingly the Introduction to the institutes if Zjustinian refers to the need for a codification because the accumulation of previous judgements had created a situation in which there were many contradictory rulings.  That again, reinforces, in my opinion, the lack of cobsistency in Roman organisational systems. That the military organisation was entirely a matter of exceptions is unlikely, but that it consisted of some situations were units were similarly organised and others were organised rather differently with some common elements looks likely and fits the evidence. What we might see is not a consistents table, but rather a Venn diagram!
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

Doubtful, in my view, on the basis that when units were raised they would be raised to a pattern and that pattern would be laid down for all.  Once the unit was raised, the vagaries of campaigning might eventually leave it looking a bit strange, but at some point the notaries would descend and it would presumably trend back to the standard pattern unless it had some very special reason for being otherwise.

That said, the Jovii and Herculani appear to have been raised, or reconstituted, as elite legions with a higher than usual establishment.  Favoured units might well have had a more lavish TO&E, at least during the period of favour, albeit this seems more likely under a Diocletian than under an Aurelian, Pertinax or Probus.  We might with advantage consider the imperial situation when assessing an apparently variant organisation.

The Dura papyri relate to the time of Macrinus (AD 217) and Elagabalus (AD 218-222).  Macrinus was mainly engaged in bribing rather than reorganising the soldiery and Elagabalus had, shall we say, other primary interests.  I would not be at all surprised to find that the Dura papyri contained a bit of creative accounting which was subsequently corrected (a theme incidentally developed by Harry Sidebottom in his novel Fire in the East).

Anastasius ruled at a time when the Roman army of the eastern empire seems to have been undergoing some degree of reorganisation from the older Roman pattern to the first traces of the newer 'Byzantine' pattern.  Confirming the organisation that would be applicable by setting it in stone would have been a sensible step in the circumstances.

Its easy to sign up to the RAT forums Patrick, then you'll be able to see the attachment.

Thanks, Adrian; I was mainly hinting to others who may not be RAT forum members that the attachment would not be visible without registering.

[Dangun]

Stumbled across this regarding the Perge fragments. Its not a translation, but a discussion of the contents.

https://www.academia.edu/2898696/The_Military_Edict_of_Anastasius_from_Perge_A_Preliminary_Report

Its in English despite the French cover page.

PS: And if anyone would like a copy of the Dura roster (Latin) I am happy to send it over...

[Jim Webster]

Doubtful, in my view, on the basis that when units were raised they would be raised to a pattern and that pattern would be laid down for all.  Once the unit was raised, the vagaries of campaigning might eventually leave it looking a bit strange, but at some point the notaries would descend and it would presumably trend back to the standard pattern unless it had some very special reason for being otherwise.

That said, the Jovii and Herculani appear to have been raised, or reconstituted, as elite legions with a higher than usual establishment.  Favoured units might well have had a more lavish TO&E, at least during the period of favour, albeit this seems more likely under a Diocletian than under an Aurelian, Pertinax or Probus.  We might with advantage consider the imperial situation when assessing an apparently variant organisation.

We have to remember that a lot of units could have been raised a century or two previously, so all sorts of things could have happened to them

But I think you've highlighted what might be the nub of the issue. If legions could be raised to be exceptional, once 'exceptionalism' is accepted within the system then it tends to spread. I suspect that recruits would tend to be directed to where they were needed, as opposed to merely where there were units 'below paper strength.'
And once a unit has been 'below paper strength' for a generation or two, then that is going to be regarded as the new norm, because it's obviously adequate for the situation the unit has found itself in.

Jim

[aligern]

Well I do have severe doubts about units being raised to a pattern and that pattern being laid down for all. That might well be true in the early empire, but We should be careful of imposing that and nineteenth century European thinking on the middle and later empire. It is inherently possible that when abstracting vexillations the emperors asked for similar contributions from existing legions, but it is quite possible, too that they got back rather dfferent contributions fom each.  Again there is a high likelihood that the junior leader structure of a new legion is standard, but the numbers of sub units and men within them could be very different and, as Jim just said, if we let time run then the clock of change will start running straight away.
Roy

[valentinianvictor]

I believe that there was a standard unit size both for the legions and other units as well. How else would the troops be able to have complained about corrupt practices such as having 'phantom' men on the pay roll lists who, although they did not actually exist, actually drew pay and allowances which then passed into the hands of the corrupt officers. And how would allowances be able to be worked out unless there was a standard unit size? Other corrupt practices could be stamped out if there was not only a standard size of a unit but also a fixed pay and allowance rate, which is exactly why the Stele were raised in the first place.

It's very difficult for many people to give up the existing paradigm about Late Roman unit sizes as it has been drummed into us for many years that said legion sizes were much smaller, based in the main on what I would have considered rather unreliable written records and papyri sources. Coello's work must bear the brunt of this criticism although I do not actually fault him as he does include a caveat about the unit sizes he discusses in the summary of his work which I think others have often overlooked.

[Jim Webster]

I believe that there was a standard unit size both for the legions and other units as well. How else would the troops be able to have complained about corrupt practices such as having 'phantom' men on the pay roll lists who, although they did not actually exist, actually drew pay and allowances which then passed into the hands of the corrupt officers. And how would allowances be able to be worked out unless there was a standard unit size? Other corrupt practices could be stamped out if there was not only a standard size of a unit but also a fixed pay and allowance rate, which is exactly why the Stele were raised in the first place.

This doesn't need a standard size for all units, mainly a standardised size for that unit

It might be that the standard was at century (or equivalent) level where a century was defined as x strong, where x equals a formal strength minus an accepted number of dead pays

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

Stumbled across this regarding the Perge fragments. Its not a translation, but a discussion of the contents.

https://www.academia.edu/2898696/The_Military_Edict_of_Anastasius_from_Perge_A_Preliminary_Report

Its in English despite the French cover page.

This is actually very useful - thanks, Nicholas.  Anastasius is re-establishing the old rules, or what he sees as the old rules, regarding prokomai (promotions), bathmoi (ranks) and to tes stratias peras (conclusion of military service).  The establishment (TO&E) of military units is taken for granted; what is at issue is abuse of the promotion and discharge systems, including obtaining rank for bribery, 'constructive dismissal' of old soldiers without gratuity and padding out muster rolls with 'dead pay', i.e. keeping the dead on the books.  Anastasius decrees that these abuses shall stop, the 'paper' establishment shall henceforth be the actual establishment and any 'new norm' is old hat.

The author also points out that one hangover from the reign of Zeno was an Isaurian 'mafia' occupying many of the highest positions in the army.  The decree published at Perge seems to have been aimed inter alia at removing many or all of these.  Perge, in Pamphylia, is coincidentally fairly close to Isauria.

PS: And if anyone would like a copy of the Dura roster (Latin) I am happy to send it over...

I'll bite ... 

[valentinianvictor]

It will be very interesting to see Prof. Rance's English translation of Onur's latest work on the fragments. I have no idea when this is likely to be however...