| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Middle Imperial Roman

Page history last edited by PBworks 17 years, 6 months ago

Middle Imperial Roman (II/64) - Caracalla, Macrinus, and other issues

 

Author: Duncan Head

 

Under discussion

 

Contents

1. Caracalla's copying of Alexander the Great

2. Macrinus' lightened Praetorians

3. Further issues


Proposal 1: Caracalla's copying of Alexander the Great

 

Synopsis: Adds provision for Caracalla's copying of Alexander the

Great

 

Proposal: Add the following new lines

 

Only Caracalla in the east, AD 214-217:

"Alexander's phalanx" with sarissai - Reg Pk (O) 16-32

 

Justification - "Alexander's phalanx":

 

The contemporary historians Dio Cassius and Herodian both describe

Caracalla's creation of a reconstructed Macedonian phalanx:

 

"He organised a phalanx, composed entirely of Macedonians, 16,000

strong, named it "Alexander's phalanx", and equipped it with the arms

that warriors had use in his day. These consisted of a helmet of raw

oxhide, a three-ply linen cuirass, a bronze shield (aspis), long pike

(doru makron), short spear (aichme bracheia), boots, and sword." (Dio

78.7.1-2, in the context of AD 212)

 

Such was his behaviour while in winter quarters in Nicomedia. He

also drilled the Macedonian phalanx… (Dio 78.18.1, winter of 213-4)

 

After completing his business with the garrison on the Danube,

Antoninus (Caracalla) marched south to Thrace, the territory adjacent

to Macedonia. There he suddenly became Alexander, and commemorated

him afresh in all sorts of ways. … He enrolled some specially

selected young men and called them the Macedonian phalanx, whose

commanders were told to adopt the names of Alexander's generals.

(Herodian 4.8.1-2)

 

Dio first mentions the phalanx in a passage which the Loeb edition

dates to AD 212, which suggests that it is possible that they should

not be restricted to eastern operations but should be allowed for the

campaign against the probably-German ("Keltic" in Dio) Kenni, dated

to 213. However this passage is in the course of a general

description of Caracalla's character and eccentricities, and perhaps

need not refer to a specific date. Dio's reference to the training of

the phalanx in Nicomedia in 213-4, at the start of the eastern

campaign, may indicate that it was then a new formation. Certainly if

the phalanx was genuinely composed of Macedonians, they are likely to

have joined him as he passed through the Balkans in 213 - and this is

precisely when Herodian introduces the Macedonian phalanx and

explicitly mentions recruitment for it.

 

The existence of this phalanx fits well with Caracalla's obsession

with Alexander, as noted in David Karunanithy's "Slingshot" article.

Earlier, Nero had named a unit "the phalanx of Alexander the Great",

and later Severus Alexander had a large force called "phalangarii",

but both of these forces were armed in conventional Roman style.

 

Confirmation that Caracalla's phalanx really existed and fought as a

phalanx, and is not just anti-Caracallan propaganda from two hostile

writers, is provided by the 3rd-century inscription of a trainee (or

instructor?) phalangite, "discen[s? or t?] phalang[arii?]", of leg.

II Parthica, from Apamea - see

http://members.tripod.com/~S_van_Dorst/Ancient_Warfare/Rome/Sources/ektaxis.html and

http://pub45.ezboard.com/fromanarmytalkfrm1.showPrevMessage?topicID=423.topic This legion was in winter quarters there

frequently in the first half of the 3rd century, including in 215-216

and 217-8 (Balty p.13). Since II Parthica was previously stationed at

Alba near Rome by Caracalla's father Severus, it may have been that

legion that formed the nucleus of Caracalla's phalanx. In that case

Dio may be right that the first elements of the phalanx were trained

as early as 212, drawing on men of II Parthica, but it was only

expanded to a real combat formation from drafts of Macedonian

recruits trained in Nicomedia in preparation for the Armenian and

Parthian campaigns that began in 214. The existence of a large force

fighting with the pike may be why Caracalla allegedly told the

Parthian king that "the Romans had an infantry force which was

invincible in close-quarter fighting with spears" (ten dia doraton

sustaden machen - Herodian 4.10.3), using the same word that Dio uses

for the Macedonian-style pike rather than emphasising the legions'

traditional throwing-spears and swords.

 

(It is also possible that the Apamea instructor was later, training

Severus Alexander's "phalangarii"; but since the text of the Historia

Augusta seems to say that their weapons were the same as those of the

other legions, they are unlikely to have needed specialist training.)

 

Postscript

 

Ross Cowan has recently suggested (in "Imperial Roman Legionary AD

161-284") that Caracalla's Macedonians were in fact armed in normal

Roman style, and that Severus Alexander's use of phalangarii for

troops armed in normal Roman style and the artistic evidence that

Caracalla's Spartan lochos were also armed in Roman style (see

below) "proves that the `phalanx' was simply a title applied to

regular units fighting in the East wishing to emulate the glorious

victories of Alexander the Great". Clearly this was one factor, and

in the case of Nero's and Severus Alexander's forces it was

presumably the overriding one. But I am not at all convinced in the

case of Caracalla's Macedonians.

 

First, Cowan probably overstates the case in putting forward the

Roman-armed Spartans as evidence for this argument:

 

"This unit and a further phalanx of Spartans is also reported by

Herodian … However, surviving gravestones of the Spartan phalangites

indicate that their `phalanx' was in reality a standard cohort…".

 

But the Spartan unit is only called a "phalanx" in an aside by

Herodian: Caracalla claimed that he was "forming a phalanx in honour

of Alexander, like the Macedonian and Spartan ones" (4.9.4). The

official name of the unit was the "Lakonian and Pitanate lochos"

(4.8.3), "lochos" being a plausible Greek approximation

for "cohors", and the tombstones do not indicate that the unit was

called a phalanx or the soldiers phalangarii. So the Roman arming of

the Spartans need say nothing about the arming of the Macedonians.

 

Secondly, Cowan puts forward the phalangarii of Severus Alexander as

proof that Caracalla's phalanx were also armed in Roman style. But

since we have an explicit statement that Severus Alexander's force

were armed as Romans, and an explicit statement that Caracalla's

were not, it is hard to see why one should disprove the other. Cowan

cites the inscription of a II Parthica phalangarius in this context;

he associates it with Severus Alexander's war, though I have not

come across any previous reference suggesting that it can be

precisely dated, and it could just as well refer to Caracalla's. He

misses the point that, as cited before, this man was a trainee

phalangite – "discens phalangarius", or at least "discen{?} phalang

{????}" in the surviving inscription. If "phalanx" was simply an

honorary title for units campaigning in the East, it is hard to see

why it should require any special training.

 

Thirdly, Dio's description of Caracalla's Macedonian armament seems

to me to be far too detailed and circumstantial to be explained

away, as Cowan tries to do, as some sort of exotic description of

standard Roman equipment. Cowan does not even try to rationalise the

bronze aspis, combination of long doru and short javelin, the ox-

hide helmet and the Macedonian boots, and his explanations of other

items are not convincing.

 

Finally, Roman imitation of Hellenistic military styles was

certainly being discussed in intellectual circles in the 3rd

century, making the idea that Caracalla and his advisers would

experiment with Macedonian weapons and tactics thoroughly credible.

Julius' Africanus' "Kestoi" is a treatise advising Severus Alexander

on tactics to adopt for his Persian war in the 230s. Africanus

specifically suggests that Roman infantry should adopt the long

doru, armour and shield of the Greeks, and fight in phalanx. This

does not prove that any Roman troops actually did this, and

certainly Severus Alexander does not seem to have done so – but the

idea was in the air (see Wheeler 1997).

 

I therefore still think that the most likely interpretation of the

evidence of Dio and Herodian is that Caracalla really did equip a

force as a Macedonian phalanx.

 

Numbers: I am assuming that this list is at double scale, about 1

element per 500 men. If so, the 16,000 Macedonians would be 32

elements. If we assume this list is at normal scale, the maximum for

the phalanx goes up to 64 elements. Of course, 16,000 is doubtless

chosen because it was the theoretical strength of a phalanx according

to the Hellenistic theorists, and whether Caracalla's force ever

really reached that strength is uncertain.

 

It is also difficult to be certain whether 16-32 gives the right

proportion in the armies that used these troops. However, a map in

Talbert's "Atlas of Classical History" suggests there were 11 legions

on the eastern frontier from Palestine to Armenia in 211 after

Severus' reforms. A major Imperial expedition may have included, say,

3 legions at nearly full strength (say 4,000 each), vexillations from

most of the others (say 6,000 total), plus we know that Caracalla

brought from Italy II Parthica (another 3,000 after detaching a

substantial cadre to train the phalanx?) and the Praetorians

(possibly 10,000 or even as many as 15,000 men - see proposal 2).

This could mean up to 23,000 legionary and Praetorian Bd in an

Imperial field army, say 20,000 if we don't have all 10-15,000

Praetorians present, represented by 30 elements of Bd (O) and 10 of

lanciarii - or one element per 500 men, suggesting that this list is

indeed at double scale. 32 elements of pikes for 16,000 looks right

on that calculation.

 

They do not replace part of the legionary entry because they were a

new formation (perhaps including part of one existing legion, II

Parthica, as a cadre of instructors). Dio and Herodian are agreed

that most of the manpower was raised from a levy of recruits in

Macedonia.

 

Grading: Grading as Reg Pk (O) is standard for the Macedonian

phalanx. The alternative is Reg Pk (I) for a new formation, but it

should not have been difficult for the phalanx to reach a competent

standard: the pike is reputed to be a relatively easy weapon to train

with, at least compared with pilum and sword, the Hellenistic manuals

were available to start off the drill and manoeuvre, and there was

probably a cadre of veterans as the core of the unit.

 

The original Macedonian phalanx (in list II/12) is alternatively

graded as Reg Ax (O) if using its shorter spear instead of the

sarissa. (For this discussion I'm prepared to take as a given that

the Macedonians are classed as Reg Ax (O) when fighting with their

short spears, thus avoiding the "are DBM Auxilia a valid troop-type"

debate.) Although Caracalla's men were equipped with a similar short

spear, I do not recommend allowing an Ax option for them. We do not

know that the short spears were ever used in the field, rather than

just kept for sentry duty and maybe assaults on walls.

 

Spartans:

 

The first version of thsi proposal also proposed to add:

 

"Laconian and Pitanate lochos" - Reg Sp (O) 0-2

 

After his mention of the Macedonian phalanx, Herodian adds:

 

He also sent for some young men from Sparta, and called them his

Lakonian and Pitanate lochos. (Herodian 4.8.3)

 

The existence of this unit is confirmed by an inscription from

Sparta, which gives its strength as 500. A veteran of that

contingent, M. Aurelius Alexys, claims on his tombstone to

have "campaigned against the Persians", indicating that this unit too

served in Caracalla's Parthian war (Cartledge & Spawforth). The

unit's name seems to be a reply to Thucydides' criticism of

Herodotos, that no "Pitanate lochos" ever existed.

 

Herodian does not mention the equipment of this unit, and it is

perhaps possible that it was equipped in normal Roman style rather

than as a reconstruction of ancient Spartan equipment. However, when

mentioning Caracalla's massacre of the young citizens of Alexandria,

he says that the emperor gave out that he was "forming a phalanx in

honour of Alexander, like the Macedonian and Spartan ones" (4.9.4) -

implying that the Spartan lochos was also a phalanx of some kind.

Alexys' tombstone shows "a lightly-armed soldier wearing a cap

resembling the old Laconian cap or pilos, and armed with a wooden

club". It therefore seems possible that Caracalla's Spartans were

armed in the ancient style of Spartan hoplites. What level of

competence they reached is unknown, but the revived form of the

Spartan agoge current under Roman rule did include military training

of some sort, so the recruits were not totally unprepared.

 

If this list is at double scale, as proposed above, the 500 Spartans

should only be one element; but one element of DBM Spears is no use

to anyone, so allowing two doesn't seem like a major problem. At

normal scale, two is correct.

 

However:

Further evidence suggests that the Spartan "Sp" option should be

dropped from this proposal. Ross Cowan's book illustrates the stele

of M. Aurelius Alexys, indicating that Spawforth's description of

him as "a lightly-armed soldier" may not be correct: he wears a

banded garment which is almost certainly a lorica segmentata. He

also has a standard Roman sword and bossed oval shield, suggesting

that even if the banded garment is not a lorica segmentata (but, for

instance, a padded subarmalis) the unit were in any case armed in

Roman style. They do not, therefore, need to be catered for in any

way separately from normal Roman troop-types.

 

Elephants:

 

Caracalla "even took around with him numerous elephants, that in this

respect also he might seem to be imitating Alexander, or rather

perhaps Dionysos" (Dio 78.7.4). However, despite the claim on at

least one website that he used war-elephants, I have found no

ancient reference to Caracalla using these animals on campaign, and

they may well have been limited to making a show in Rome. Didius

Julianus' abortive attempt to use arena elephants against Severus in

193 would not have left a good impression. It does not seem

justifiable to include them in the list.


 

References:

 

Dio Cassius, "Roman History" book 78 - online at

http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/78*.html - particularly 78.7 and 78.18.

 

Herodian, "History of the Empire" book 4.

 

Jean Charles Balty and Wilfried van Rengen, "Apamea in Syria - The

Winter quarters of Legio II Parthica: Roman gravestones from the

military cemetery" (VUBPress, Brussels, 1993)

 

Paul Cartledge and Anthony Spawforth, "Hellenistic and Roman Sparta -

A Tale of Two Cities" (Routledge, 1989, 2nd edition 2002), p.118-9.

 

Cowan, Ross, "Imperial Roman Legionary AD 161-284" (Osprey, 2003)

 

Wheeler, E L, "Why the Romans can't defeat the Parthians: Julius

Africanus and the Strategy of Magic" in "Roman Frontier Studies

1995", ed.W Groenman-van Waateringe et al. (Oxbow, Oxford, 1997)

 

David Karunanithy, "Of Ox-Hide Helmets and Three-Ply Armour: The

Equipment of Macedonian Phalangites as described through a Roman

Source" in Slingshot 213 (January2001)

 

Graham Sumner, "Roman Military Clothing (2): AD 200-400" (Osprey

2003) plate C3 for a reconstruction.

 

R J A Talbert, "Atlas of Classical History" (Croom Helm, 1985)

http://www.roman-empire.net/decline/caracalla.html


 

Proposal 2: Macrinus' lightened Praetorians

 

Synopsis: Allow Praetorians to be lightened to Reg Bd (F)

 

Proposal:

 

Replace

Legionaries - Reg Bd (O) 9-30

with

Praetorians and legionaries - Reg Bd (O) 9-30

 

Add the following new line

 

Only Macrinus in the east, AD 218:

Replace Praetorian Bd (O) with unarmoured Reg Bd (F) 8-20

 

Add to notes: "Macrinus may not use Arab allies."

 

Justification:

 

The contemporary historian Dio Cassius (79.37.4) records that

Macrinus, facing the rebellion of the eastern army in favour of

Elagabalus, lightened the equipment of the Praetorian Guard:

 

"So far as the zeal of the Praetorians went, he conquered (he had

taken away their cuirasses of scale armour and their concave shields

{tous de thorakas tous lepidotous kai ta aspidas ta solenoeideis} and

had thus made them lighter for battle); but he was defeated by his

own cowardice…"

 

The Praetorians may have been as many as 15,000 strong at this time -

Boris Rankov's Osprey "The Praetorian Guard" suggests they may have

been expanded to as many as 15,000 men under either Commodus or

Severus - though this is calculated from discharge figures rather

than being given explicitly in any source, and the 10,000 in ten

cohorts that Dio ascribes to Augustus may in fact be correct for his

own day. This suggests that they could form a large part of an

Imperial field army, perhaps - especially once large parts had

rebelled against Macrinus - outnumbering the legions.

 

It is possible that lightening the Praetorians' equipment was a

standard tactic resorted to on other occasions (some would argue that

legionary cohorts described as expeditii were similarly lightened),

but I am not aware of any other evidence for it, and Dio dos not

imply such.

 

The issue is complicated by the use of Bd (F) as a classification for

legionary lanciarii, but this is a choice I have not been convinced

by. (As far as I know, there is no mention of Praetorian lanciarii.)

 

Given Macrinus' brief and unsuccessful reign, it is unlikely that he

could rely on any Arab nomad allies (the only allies currently

allowed to eastern armies at this period).


 

References:

 

Dio Cassius, "Roman History" book 79 - online at

http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/79*.html

 

Boris Rankov, "The Praetorian Guard" (Osprey Elite series 1994)


 

Proposal 3:Further issues on the MIR list

 

Praetorians: It may be worth investigating whether the Praetorians

should be upgraded to Reg Bd (S) from Severus' re-organisation in 197

to some point in the mid-3rd century (except when their equipment was

lightened by Macrinus). Unlike earlier periods, they were recruited

from veteran legions and regularly accompanied the Emperors on

campaign at this time. More investigation of their combat record

would seem to be required.

 

Note that DBMM, unlike DBM, specifically caters for elite Romans as Blades (S).

 

Legionary lanciarii: Both the classification of the lanciarii and their numbers

(which are based chiefly on a papyrus pay-record open to differing

interpretations) are worth further investigation.

 

Auxilia: These are Ax (O) in this list alone. Nigel Tallis suggests

that some at least should be armoured Ax (S), based on

representations from Dura.

 

Clubmen: Should Aurelian's "Palestinian clubmen" be Irr Bd (X) as

now, or regulars? Zosimus' "Historia Nova" (the main source) seems to

imply they are regular Roman units.

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.