 | | War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries |
December 14th, 2010, 08:15 PM
|
#1 | | Priapus
Joined: Jan 2009 From: the solo basement party rocking tonight Posts: 6,466 | Question on Roman Military
I've heard of the Limitanei, Commitatenses, Feoderati, Specialist, and Scholae.
what were these and what were the differances?
| | |
| |
December 15th, 2010, 05:55 AM
|
#2 | | Man in the Box ¤ Blog of the Year ¤
Joined: Oct 2009 From: Baltimorean-in-exile Posts: 16,680 | Re: Question on Roman Military
Limitani (limitanei, pseudocomitanses) - after the military reforms of Diocletian and Constantine, this troop type arose. They were considered regular soldiers - with training and weaponry similar to that of men in the field armies - but they were used as garrison troops exclusively. Though they were part of the regular army in name, in practice they were a glorified militia. Their standard equipment included oval shields, thrusting spears, and swords. Bows and crossbows would've been used by some; chainmail shirts and helmets would've been rare but used by some. Service in the limitani was often heriditary. Papyruses from Egypt attest to Egyptian limitani soldiers serving in a part-time context, also working at civilian jobs. The limitani and the field armies tended to be mutually hostile.
Comitanses - These were the legionaries of the 1st-3rd Centuries, by a different name. These men were the marines of 4th-5th Century Rome; they still wielded the gladius and still wore chainmail, though they used lighter javelins than previous centuries and favored oval shields over rectangular ones. Comitanses units were also organized in small formations than the legions of old; the exact strength and organization of these units is unknown but is estimated to have been between 300 and 2000 men.
Specialists - Specialists would just be soldiers of any kind who had a special skill or training that made them useful for specific tasks. Batavians (who could swim wearing armor), exculcatores (military hunters) and ballistarii (who appear to have been crossbowmen) would be examples of late Roman specialists.
Scholae - The Scholae Palatina was an elite cavalry bodyguard formed by Emperor Constantine; most of its soldiers were Sarmatians. They replaced the cavalry element of the newly-disbanded Praetorians as the Emperor's personal companions and bodyguards.
| |
Last edited by Salah; December 15th, 2010 at 01:46 PM.
|
| |
December 15th, 2010, 01:24 PM
|
#3 | | Man in the Box ¤ Blog of the Year ¤
Joined: Oct 2009 From: Baltimorean-in-exile Posts: 16,680 | Re: Question on Roman Military
Whoops, missed the foederati.
These men - federates in modern English - where basically allied contingents serving in the Roman army, the closest thing to mercenaries as you would ever find in a Roman camp. They were drawn predominately from Germanic and Sarmatian tribes who had allied with Rome, but were not in any way directly subject to Rome.
Foederati were noted for fighting in the distinct styles of their people; some inscriptions suggest that they may have been issued Roman-style swords and daggers, but otherwise they used the weapons and battle tactics of their tribes. In the Eastern Empire, foederati were called symmakhiari.
They were in use at least as early as the 1st Century AD, but didn't become a common - let alone essential - part of the Roman battle-order til the 4th Century. The Goths who jacked up the Balkans in the 370s and 380s AD were renegade foederati, who had been driven to revolt by the prejudice of their Roman commanders and neighbors.
| | |
| |
December 15th, 2010, 01:30 PM
|
#4 | | Suspended indefinitely
Joined: Dec 2010 From: California Posts: 217 | Re: Question on Roman Military
Thank's Sala ad-Din! That helps me understand more about Roman Military words. | | |
| |
December 15th, 2010, 01:48 PM
|
#5 | | Priapus
Joined: Jan 2009 From: the solo basement party rocking tonight Posts: 6,466 | Re: Question on Roman Military Quote:
Originally Posted by Salah ad-Din Limitani (limitanei, pseudocomitanses) - after the military reforms of Diocletian and Constantine, this troop type arose. They were considered regular soldiers - with training and weaponry similar to that of men in the field armies - but they were used as garrison troops exclusively. Though they were part of the regular army in name, in practice they were a glorified militia. Their standard equipment included oval shields, thrusting spears, and swords. Bows and crossbows would've been used by some; chainmail shirts and helmets would've been rare but used by some. Service in the limitani was often heriditary. Papyruses from Egypt attest to Egyptian limitani soldiers serving in a part-time context, also working at civilian jobs. The limitani and the field armies tended to be mutually hostile. | This is excellent, thank you very much. Ohh, I was told that many sources now show the Limitanae were actually professional soldiers. I can't quickly find a source for it, but I'm just saying what I was told.
| | |
| |
December 15th, 2010, 01:51 PM
|
#6 | | Man in the Box ¤ Blog of the Year ¤
Joined: Oct 2009 From: Baltimorean-in-exile Posts: 16,680 | Re: Question on Roman Military
Limitani were professional, but they weren't very high quality troops. Since most of them were recruited locally (if they were really "recruited" at all), they felt loyalty to their home city/village and families, rather than to the Empire. This made them very unreliable for foreign campaigns, prone to mutiny and desertion.
Their primary role would've been to track down local bandits, play the part of urban policemen and firemen, and help out if any tribes from outside the Empire happen to go pillaging their way by...
| | |
| |
December 15th, 2010, 01:53 PM
|
#7 | | Suspended indefinitely
Joined: Dec 2010 From: California Posts: 217 | Re: Question on Roman Military Quote:
Originally Posted by Salah ad-Din Limitani were professional, but they weren't very high quality troops. Since most of them were recruited locally (if they were really "recruited" at all), they felt loyalty to their home city/village and families, rather than to the Empire. This made them very unreliable for foreign campaigns, prone to mutiny and desertion.
Their primary role would've been to track down local bandits, play the part of urban policemen and firemen, and help out if any tribes from outside the Empire happen to go pillaging their way by... | Can we have the resource Salah ad-Din for that if you won't mind? | | |
| |
December 15th, 2010, 01:56 PM
|
#8 | | Man in the Box ¤ Blog of the Year ¤
Joined: Oct 2009 From: Baltimorean-in-exile Posts: 16,680 | Re: Question on Roman Military Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther Can we have the resource Salah ad-Din for that if you won't mind?  | "Late Roman Infantryman 235-565 AD" is a good basic source. Search "limitani" on the web and you should find all kinds of information.
| | |
| |
December 15th, 2010, 02:02 PM
|
#9 | | Priapus
Joined: Jan 2009 From: the solo basement party rocking tonight Posts: 6,466 | Re: Question on Roman Military Quote:
Originally Posted by Salah ad-Din Limitani were professional, but they weren't very high quality troops. Since most of them were recruited locally (if they were really "recruited" at all), they felt loyalty to their home city/village and families, rather than to the Empire. This made them very unreliable for foreign campaigns, prone to mutiny and desertion.
Their primary role would've been to track down local bandits, play the part of urban policemen and firemen, and help out if any tribes from outside the Empire happen to go pillaging their way by... | ahhhh ok, tis all makes sense now  thank you.
| | |
| | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.
|  |