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.