Been delving a bit deeper into the world of Roman soldiers and camels today. Might be a little while yet before I actually get to the soldiers and their varied relationships.
As noted in the last related post, there are two papyri from Nessana that deal with camel requsitions. Haven't looked at them, or the discussion about them, in detail just yet, but Kraemer was of the opinion that P.Ness. 35 had to do with camels used, at least in part, with combat, while P.Ness. 37 had to do with camels for transport. Interestingly, the former includes both related terms, κά(μηλος) and δρο(μεδάριος), the latter just κ(άμηλος). To the unitiated, namely me, the appearance of both kamelos and dromedarios was a bit surprising, since to me a camel was a camel was a camel, though some obviously have one humps and others two (Arabians mostly one). This even though I had a trip to the local zoo a few months ago and they had both of the one- and two-humped variety. Obviously, I had to get to the bottom of this, and dromedary seems to be the term used most often to refer to the one-humped variety, camel to the two-humped variety. With that said, and just to complicate things even more, the Latin names of the two species are a little less than helpful: the one-humped variety is the camelus dromedarus (!!), while the two-humped variety is the camelus bactrianus. Ok, fair enough.
The presence of the two terms in these Nessana papyri would seem to suggest that in these official circles (if we can call it that), there was an awareness or at least knowledge of the two varities. On the other hand, what few known units of camel-riders we have are all (an earlier one called the ala I Ulpia dromedarium Palmyrenorum and a few units listed in the Notitia Dignitatum in Egypt and Palestine) called dromedarium (or some cognate). One other sixth century source, my dear friend Procopius, does get into the military's use of camels: in his Secret History in the midst of one of his many diatribes he complains about Justinian's abolition of the camels set aside by the state for the transport of people and goods (SH 30.15-16). The term he uses, however, is κάμηλος. Although Procopius isn't, perhaps, the best item of comparison, and given my research, thus far, has been rather preliminary, is it possible that there wasn't a widespread awareness of the two different varieties, at least among the general populace? Would not those with experience in the (Near East that is) most likely have been familiar with the one-humped variety. I'm wondering two if the distinction should be between κάμηλος as simply camel, and δρομεδάριος as the camel-rider, though P.Ness. 35 doesn't really suggest this.
All of this early work has to do with my attempts at determining, or at least revisiting, the nature of the soldiers based at Nessana, for I'm still not convinced that they should be considered a unit of dromedarii, simply because the evidence isn't good enough. Indeed, following this thread I ended up taking a glance at the finds from Dura Europos, for most see the cohors XX Palmyrenorum as comprised partly of camel-riders (dromedarii). This clincher for this argument (and not everyone refers to this, quite disappointingly) is one of the Dura papyri, particularly P. Dur. 82, which reads, early on, "...ṣ[esq(uiplicarius)] ị drom(adarii) xxxiiii in his sesq(uiplicarius)..." (find it in Campbell 1994, 180, Fink's RMR 47). The papyrus is in Latin, and it's fragmentary, but it seems to refer to a umber of dromedarii under the command of someone at Dura - at least 34 of them, perhaps. This has, in part, led to some speculation that this particular unit was equitate (cohortes equitatae). Cohorts tended to be infantry, while alae tended to be cavalry. Equitate cohorts were those composed primarily of infantry, with a few cavalry tacked on. Indeed, in that same papyrus, what has been called a morning report (essentially a summary of what the troops at a locale were up to), we find several references to equites. I wonder though if these dromedarii were necessarily attached to the unit, even if they were likely based at the site.
Anyway, the point is I'm not entirely convinced that there were camel riders specifically attached to the Palmyrene cohort at Dura. In turn, I'm still not convinced that the unit at Nessana was a camel-unit, per se, whatever that would have entailed. Neither relevant papyri are very long, and I don't think we know if the names listed represent a suitable sample of the garrison at the base. They might just include those soldiers who made use of camels to undertake the unit's various duties. This could be simply the travelling from point A to point B, and they might not have made up a significant part of the total animals present. Indeed, although I haven't gotten very far in my reading on camels at el-Lejjun, what I have found for that other desert near-eastern-locale is that there were all sorts of animals present, and this on the basis of the animal bones found on site. Some were camels, but there were a whole lot of other animals. There were sheep, goats, cattle, pigs, chickens, and so forth. The majority were domestic, and used for a variety of things (working animals, and for consumption, for instance). There might have been all sorts of other animals at Nessana, which for whatever reason haven't surfaced in our surviving evidence (in this instance consisting of papyri). They might have made extensive use of horses for combat. It could just be that the receipts or what have you detailing their requisition haven't survived. It seems highly likely that all sorts of other animals were there too used by the military in some of the same ways that we find at el-Lejjun.
Maybe the soldiers were somehow involved in the raising and selling of camels to units or government officials in Egypt - which is where some of the camels listed in P. Ness. 37 seem to be off to? As noted, there were units of dromedarii in Egypt found in the Notitia Dignitatum, and maybe Nessana was a region known for its raising of camels. It's also not 100% certain that P. Ness. 35 and 37 were official documents. They certainly seem to have involved soldiers, but the soldiers might have been operating in an unofficial capacity. There might not have been a whole lot going on at Nessana, and so they passed their time in other ways (dealing in property, raising families, selling camels).
In the end, and so far (in this research), I'm leaning towards this unit not being particularly comprised of camel-riders, though that doesn't mean that camels weren't a significant part or at least involved in the unit's activities, particularly when it came to transport, and maybe even scouting. Although only indirectly relevant, I also have my doubts about the cohort at Dura - not a camel unit (though they likely used). Not quite sure if the distinction was made between camel types in the ancient world. That will require some more reading. Anyways, as always, more to come...
Wednesday, 28 January 2015
Tuesday, 27 January 2015
Justinian's Foreign Policy
This term, while continuing work large-scale Procopian things, I'm also leading a seminar on the Caesarean scholar himself, and we just held our discussion of the Persian Wars. I re-read it again for the first time in a while, and with what could be called fresh(-ish) eyes a few things struck me, one of which was Justinian's policy in the east.
As many know, our principal source for these wars is Justinian, even if there are some other accounts out there, including those of Malalas, Pseudo-Joshua, and Pseduo-Zachariah, among others. As many also know, the personality conspicuously absent from the narrative is Justinian. Where Khusro gets personally involved in his own western wars - we find him at the front, yelling at his soldiers and involved in negotaiations - Justinian remained in Constantinople. Both Procopius and Agathias complained bitterly about his foreign policy, Procopius in the Secret History, Agathias in the Histories. They, of course, weren't alone in this, and both ancients and moderns alike have found fault with the emperor, and not just for his military policy (tyranny, spending habits, etc.). Upon further review, however, and in keeping with recent work by Greatrex (Histos article/s) and Stewart (various blogposts), I wonder whether these assessments aren't a little harsh, at least in part.
The Justinian of the Secret History is all sorts of things, and I wonder if the figure that Procopius' writing conceals is a workaholic - the long nights, the lack of sleep, and so on all seem to suggest as much. Given his foreign policy challenges, to say nothing of all the other problems Justinian faced (many of which, including the foreign policy stuff, were his own creation), to have any measure of success it seems likely thast he would have had to put in some serious hours. The Romans were at war on at least four fronts, and I think if we bear that context in mind his decision to stay at home, and the varied approach that he took, seems to make a great deal of success.
Although Procopius himself provides all sorts of explanations for Belisarius' movements, the initial explanations, that is those offered in the Wars (and I'm assuming the relevants there were written first) to my mind make the most sense. Belisarius starts off in the east. We see something of his rise and the ranks and the successes he has. Then he gets shipped out west, and to two different spots, before returning the east, and then back west, and so forth. For much of that period Belisarius was the highest ranking of generals, or at least hte one whom Justinian held in the highest regard, even if his views changed depending on results. Would it have been feasible for Justinian to have done all that travelling himself, or even sensible, especially if Justinain wasn't the most qualifed of generals? Why go marching about, something which your immediate predecessors hadn't done, when you had perfectly capable and loyal generals at hand?
Plus, with Justinian back in Constantinople, presumably with reasonable information at hand about the situation on the various fronts, it would be much easier for him to deploy whatever resources he had at his disposal. Justinian seemed willing to use a number of approaches to Persian aggression. At times he sent in the troops. Some of these came from newly conquered territories/defeated peoples, though it's likely there was a sizeable body of men already available for military action in the east in the various fortifications and cities. At times he decided to pay off the Persians to prevent them from causing (more) harm.
Just a few generals comments - with maybe more to come - but at least with respect to affairs in the east, Justinian's approach was, I think, sensible, and even practical (if I ignore the complications caused by his decision to go to war in the west, admittedly).
As many know, our principal source for these wars is Justinian, even if there are some other accounts out there, including those of Malalas, Pseudo-Joshua, and Pseduo-Zachariah, among others. As many also know, the personality conspicuously absent from the narrative is Justinian. Where Khusro gets personally involved in his own western wars - we find him at the front, yelling at his soldiers and involved in negotaiations - Justinian remained in Constantinople. Both Procopius and Agathias complained bitterly about his foreign policy, Procopius in the Secret History, Agathias in the Histories. They, of course, weren't alone in this, and both ancients and moderns alike have found fault with the emperor, and not just for his military policy (tyranny, spending habits, etc.). Upon further review, however, and in keeping with recent work by Greatrex (Histos article/s) and Stewart (various blogposts), I wonder whether these assessments aren't a little harsh, at least in part.
The Justinian of the Secret History is all sorts of things, and I wonder if the figure that Procopius' writing conceals is a workaholic - the long nights, the lack of sleep, and so on all seem to suggest as much. Given his foreign policy challenges, to say nothing of all the other problems Justinian faced (many of which, including the foreign policy stuff, were his own creation), to have any measure of success it seems likely thast he would have had to put in some serious hours. The Romans were at war on at least four fronts, and I think if we bear that context in mind his decision to stay at home, and the varied approach that he took, seems to make a great deal of success.
Although Procopius himself provides all sorts of explanations for Belisarius' movements, the initial explanations, that is those offered in the Wars (and I'm assuming the relevants there were written first) to my mind make the most sense. Belisarius starts off in the east. We see something of his rise and the ranks and the successes he has. Then he gets shipped out west, and to two different spots, before returning the east, and then back west, and so forth. For much of that period Belisarius was the highest ranking of generals, or at least hte one whom Justinian held in the highest regard, even if his views changed depending on results. Would it have been feasible for Justinian to have done all that travelling himself, or even sensible, especially if Justinain wasn't the most qualifed of generals? Why go marching about, something which your immediate predecessors hadn't done, when you had perfectly capable and loyal generals at hand?
Plus, with Justinian back in Constantinople, presumably with reasonable information at hand about the situation on the various fronts, it would be much easier for him to deploy whatever resources he had at his disposal. Justinian seemed willing to use a number of approaches to Persian aggression. At times he sent in the troops. Some of these came from newly conquered territories/defeated peoples, though it's likely there was a sizeable body of men already available for military action in the east in the various fortifications and cities. At times he decided to pay off the Persians to prevent them from causing (more) harm.
Just a few generals comments - with maybe more to come - but at least with respect to affairs in the east, Justinian's approach was, I think, sensible, and even practical (if I ignore the complications caused by his decision to go to war in the west, admittedly).
Thursday, 22 January 2015
Nessana, Forts, and Camels
I'm in the process of doing some resarch on a paper to be presented at the upcoming CACW here in Winnipeg, and something I plan on turning into a journal article at the conference's conclusion. That paper's on the military and the wider community in sixth century Nessana, a village in the north/central Negev, and how the military interacts within that community. I have vague designs on completing some sort of network analysis, though I'm not entirely sure how feasible that is (not enough people, not enough in a generation, will it give any kind of meaningful results, etc.).
Getting back to Nessana, probably the most remarkable thing about this site is the survival of a fairly significant cache of papyri, many of which detail the military's involvement in local life. That brings me to the subject of the paper, and this entry - on my thoughts so far. Initially the view was that the fort (kastron) at Nessana was built in the fifth century, possibly in the later end of the century too. More recently, however, the view is that it was constructed in the fourth century, and in particular during the reign of Theodosius I. One of the catches from this redating is the absence of the site from the Notitia Dignitatum, which purports to be, or I guess which for many people is, a resonably accurate indication of the disposition of the military in the east and west of the empire around 400 (generally speaking - the dates vary a little for east and west, and with respect to their relative dates of occupation). What does this mean?
If the fort was built in the fourth century, especially later in that century, then we should expect the troops listed therein to appear in the document somewhere, particularly under the Dux Palaestinae (Nessana's province shifted back and forth a few times in late antiquity, and Palaestinae is one of its provinces). There are other sites from the region listed under that frontier commander such as Birsama and Zoara, for instance. So if the fort was built in time for the publication of the ND, what were the soldiers that were presumably there? Why were they left out? It's too early for Arab federates, which tend to be a later addition (6th century), and limitanei were well-used at this stage. Is it the case that what we call a fort shouldn't be? Not everything with walls is necessarily a fort (and this is something I'll have to take a look at - excavation reports). Unfortunately none of the papyri go back that early, so it's not like we can find evidence for soldiers in their midst (though we do not doubt they were there later). So maybe soldiers weren't there from the get-go and the fortified place shouldn't be considered a fort, at least in thes sense of a fort being associated with soldiers. On the other hand, the ND is not without its problems, and it's entirely likely that some details were left out - and Nessana was hardly the heart of the empire.
The other issue to discuss for the moment is the identity of the soldiers who were later there. They were originally thought to be part of the Arithmos of the Most Loyal Theodosians. Now, this is disputed. In truth, the evidence isn't strong enough to make a case one way or another. We have the unit title but once in the archive, and it comes in reference to two soldiers, who say they're from Nessana, but are based in Rhinocorura. The thinking now, generally speaking, is that if they're soldiers based in Rhinocorura in the Theodosian unit then it would stand to reason that that is where they are based, and the "from Nessana" (apo kwmhs Nessanwn) bit should be discarded. And yet, soldiers were regularly stationed away from their main unit, and for all that a day's march is a considerable distance in antiquity, we have plenty of evidence for soldiers operating much further from their units in other places. Does apo in this context have to designate the place they're from? I admit the inclusion of kome is, perhaps, suggestive, but I have my reservations.
Regardless of identity, there is good reason to believe that camels made up a significant part of their retinue, at least on the basis of two camel lists/orders (P. Ness. 35 and 37). Does this mean they were camel-cavalry? Maybe - why else would you order a bunch of camels? This, at least, is what most people assume (they used camels). On the other hand, it's not impossible that the soldiers could have been infantry who relied on camels for transport alone of supplies, though possibly too of men. That doesn't necessarily mean that they fought on camels. Indeed, camels would make a lot of sense given the environment.
In sum, what do I think so far? I need to see the excavation reports so that I can see why people have dated the fort the way that they have. I still have doubts about the fourth century date. Also, I'm not 100% convinced that the unit isn't the Arithmos of Most Loyal Theodosians. Why can't they be off on some other duty as part of a unit mainly based in Nessana? Could they not also be from Nessana too (born there - and working for the unit based there)? Also, must they be camel-warriors? Again, not convinced. Not sure there's much in the way of equipment-finds that might be suggestive one way or the other, but I don't see why they might not be just for transit.
And there we have it. More to come, most likely...
Getting back to Nessana, probably the most remarkable thing about this site is the survival of a fairly significant cache of papyri, many of which detail the military's involvement in local life. That brings me to the subject of the paper, and this entry - on my thoughts so far. Initially the view was that the fort (kastron) at Nessana was built in the fifth century, possibly in the later end of the century too. More recently, however, the view is that it was constructed in the fourth century, and in particular during the reign of Theodosius I. One of the catches from this redating is the absence of the site from the Notitia Dignitatum, which purports to be, or I guess which for many people is, a resonably accurate indication of the disposition of the military in the east and west of the empire around 400 (generally speaking - the dates vary a little for east and west, and with respect to their relative dates of occupation). What does this mean?
If the fort was built in the fourth century, especially later in that century, then we should expect the troops listed therein to appear in the document somewhere, particularly under the Dux Palaestinae (Nessana's province shifted back and forth a few times in late antiquity, and Palaestinae is one of its provinces). There are other sites from the region listed under that frontier commander such as Birsama and Zoara, for instance. So if the fort was built in time for the publication of the ND, what were the soldiers that were presumably there? Why were they left out? It's too early for Arab federates, which tend to be a later addition (6th century), and limitanei were well-used at this stage. Is it the case that what we call a fort shouldn't be? Not everything with walls is necessarily a fort (and this is something I'll have to take a look at - excavation reports). Unfortunately none of the papyri go back that early, so it's not like we can find evidence for soldiers in their midst (though we do not doubt they were there later). So maybe soldiers weren't there from the get-go and the fortified place shouldn't be considered a fort, at least in thes sense of a fort being associated with soldiers. On the other hand, the ND is not without its problems, and it's entirely likely that some details were left out - and Nessana was hardly the heart of the empire.
The other issue to discuss for the moment is the identity of the soldiers who were later there. They were originally thought to be part of the Arithmos of the Most Loyal Theodosians. Now, this is disputed. In truth, the evidence isn't strong enough to make a case one way or another. We have the unit title but once in the archive, and it comes in reference to two soldiers, who say they're from Nessana, but are based in Rhinocorura. The thinking now, generally speaking, is that if they're soldiers based in Rhinocorura in the Theodosian unit then it would stand to reason that that is where they are based, and the "from Nessana" (apo kwmhs Nessanwn) bit should be discarded. And yet, soldiers were regularly stationed away from their main unit, and for all that a day's march is a considerable distance in antiquity, we have plenty of evidence for soldiers operating much further from their units in other places. Does apo in this context have to designate the place they're from? I admit the inclusion of kome is, perhaps, suggestive, but I have my reservations.
Regardless of identity, there is good reason to believe that camels made up a significant part of their retinue, at least on the basis of two camel lists/orders (P. Ness. 35 and 37). Does this mean they were camel-cavalry? Maybe - why else would you order a bunch of camels? This, at least, is what most people assume (they used camels). On the other hand, it's not impossible that the soldiers could have been infantry who relied on camels for transport alone of supplies, though possibly too of men. That doesn't necessarily mean that they fought on camels. Indeed, camels would make a lot of sense given the environment.
In sum, what do I think so far? I need to see the excavation reports so that I can see why people have dated the fort the way that they have. I still have doubts about the fourth century date. Also, I'm not 100% convinced that the unit isn't the Arithmos of Most Loyal Theodosians. Why can't they be off on some other duty as part of a unit mainly based in Nessana? Could they not also be from Nessana too (born there - and working for the unit based there)? Also, must they be camel-warriors? Again, not convinced. Not sure there's much in the way of equipment-finds that might be suggestive one way or the other, but I don't see why they might not be just for transit.
And there we have it. More to come, most likely...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)