"(Very) Late Roman Equites Promoti & Bucelarii Questions" Topic

Two questions which have me scratching my head:

1. Were the Equites Promoti part of the light cavalry (Dalmatians, Illyrinas, Moors etc) or no?

2. Would a Patrician's/Byzantine Warlord's Bucelarii be uniformed or not, and would they have caried a unit shield pattern?

Some little lead men need to know…..

@ freecloud

1. AFAIK the Equites Promoti were light cavalry, possibly derived from the earlier Legionary cavalry. Phil Barker has them unarmoured and helmeted, with a small/medium round shield.

2. I've never read anything to indiate they were uniformed or had a unit shield. However there are many who are better read than I, who, I'm sure, will be along soon to help you out

1. I don't think so; they were originally promoted from legionary units to become regular cavalry.
2. We don't know but I would imagine that it is very likely that they would have been issued with uniforms and recognisable by a shield design.

…you wait hours for an answer and then two come along at once. :-)

Promoti may be more complex than I had indicated:

link

There, I knew it, someone clever was sure to be along as soon as I opened my big mouth.
However, my Equites Promoti will stay as better class light cavalry

YY there seems to be a "revision" of the Promoti from Barker days as their evolution was different, so was wondering what the thinking is now.

As to Bucellarii I want them to be good for Late Roman & Byzantines, so I'm thinking of standard shield, but with a fairly wide variety of kit/colours etc. Maybe all get the dun campaign cloak.

My understanding is that the Bucellarii were mostly barbarians looking for employment and provided their own equipment. They could be either foot or cav.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone like Belisarius, who could afford the best, would have made sure his Bucellarii were equipped the same and with something(cloak/shield)that designated them as his personnel troops.

It is highly unlikely that the Promoti were light cavalry. I discussed this in some detail in my Osprey Late Roman Cavalryman book but as Big Red Bat points out as senior units promoted from the legionary cavalry there is nothing to suggest that they were light skirmishers and far more likely that they were pretty well equipped.
The third century Dalmatian cavalry are recorded on at least two occasions as using feigned flight (agains the Goths last Naissus and against the Palmyrans. This together with unarmoured troops being shown on sculptures seems to be the origin of the idea that fairly large numbers of later Roman cavalry were 'light'. So there is an argument for 'light' Dalmatians but as a coat of mail does not prevent feigned flight then just because they used such tactics does not automatically make them light skirmishers.

Warlords frequently gave gifts of clothing to their favoured followers so some uniform items such as cloaks would be quite likely amongst Bucellarii. However they would also purchase and loot equipment of their own choosing so it is unlikely that they would have had an entirely uniform appearance. As the bucellarii were maintained and equipped by individual leaders rather than the state there would be huge variance between those bucellarii kept by different generals.
Simon

Interesting point about the Dalmatians, Simon, thanks.

@Smacdowell yy hsve your book, hence q. on promoti, and it serves my interests to repurpose mine as heavies, less painting ;).

Re other Illyrian cavalry, I do find it hard to believe the Romans had no designated "light" cavalry though.

Re Bucelallrii what's your thought on units shield patterns?

And another thing while we're at it – Belisarius' Moors – would they be "wild" Moors or ex Roman (Indigenae?) units d'you think

I am sure that the Romans had light skirmishing cavalry. The Dalmatians may have been such, the Mauri almost certainly and also quite possibly units designated as Cetrati (named after small shields); and also many of the horse archers. Many of the limitaei units were cavalry and probably many of them would have been 'light' in that they were used more for patrolling and skirmishing rather than line of battle.
Belisarius' Moors would certainly have been 'wild' Moors as the various Moorish clans had been waging war on each other and the Vandals for some time. Those who joined up with the 6th C Romans would have been from those groups who were looking to expand their power at the expense of others. I'm not sure any served with Belisarius in 533 but they did with Solomon and others after that. It seems that their main occupation was to hang around the edges of the battlefield and then join in when it was clear which side was winning.
As personal retainers of independent warlords bucellarii shields could be just about any possibility including personal designs, a uniform colour with personal motifs or an actual unform design. I tend to go for the middle option. Any design based on the Notitia Dignitatum patters is likely to look right.
Simon

Bukellarii are likely to have been. uniformly kitted out with items such as clothing that wore out. They may also have been given military hardware, though it isn't certain that this was of standard pattern even for regulars. If we can take the Visigothic Laws of Euric as being simply updated Late Roman Law then the bukellariiys was expected to return kit if he left the lord, though their were soldiers that did provide own gear. When the Roman General Germanus was assembling an army to reconquer Italy fir Justinian in 550, he recruited many bukellarri who were from regular Roman units. So they were certainly not all freelance barbarians. If they left a regular unit and kept their kit then they are likely to have to have painted something else on their shields as otherwise they would look as if they were still in their former outfit.
By Justinian's time bukellarii also took an oath of loyalty to the emperor, so they are very definitely not private armies. This was as much as anything to prevent generals aiming for the throne by recruiting late numbers of personal bukellarii. Belisarius had, after his Italian campaign, a force that was supposed to be 7000 strong. However,nwe have to assume that when Belisarius recuced the number these either went to other generals, if regulars, went back to the regular units, perhaps to the ones they had left, or back to their tribal group.

Thanks all, very interesting.

Fwiw I have "promoted" my Promoti to the heavies, and decided that a combination of troops taken from stratiotai units + a personal retinue from Simon's middle option works for me.

RE: Belisarius' Moors & others like Huns etc I read that Early Byzantine Phoederatoi tended to be kitted out by the Byzantines so would look quite "Byzantine" – any views on that?

My interpretation on the 6th Century Roman Foederati or "Phoederatoi" is that they were regular troops which may or may not have had Germanic origins. As Procopius says:
"Now at an earlier time the only barbarians had been enlisted amongst the foederati… but at the present time there is nothing to prevent anyone from assuming the name, since time will by no means consent to keep names attached to the things to which they were formerly applied."
So yes -- kitted out with Roman equipment. Possibly they may have been spear and shield armed in Germanic fashion rather than bow armed as other Romans of the time (who would not have called themselves Byzantine!) -- but there is no hard evidence for this.

Thanks Simon – for modelling purposes, again like the Bukellari, how uniform do you think the Phoideratoi might be?

Military uniform is a very modern concept. It did not exist back then as we understand it now. Clothing allowances were the the norm rather than issue and then the soldiers could buy what they wished with it. Sometimes gifts of clothing would be given which might ensure a more uniform look. Soldiers on campaign would procure clothing at different times and places so would probably look less uniform than static garrison troops with limited supply sources. Therefore I would imaging the foederati and most other regular troops of the period not wearing uniform as such but perhaps having identifying marks such as plumes, cloaks and shield patterns.

Quite a lot of soldiers are wearing clothes with applique embroidery, either Roman style patches and claves or barbarian styleborders to sleeves and trousers, yokes around the neck and strips of embroidery downnthe front of the trousers. The embroidery was expensive work and it is most lijely that it was removed from worn clothes and re sewn onto a new tunic and troysers (if the soldier was not wearing tight Roman breeches which were an alternative) . So I'd expect to see most men in white tunic and baggy trousers, gut with different embroidery on the edges because they would have their devorations moved from one tunic to the next. The lijelihood is that tunic base colours were white , presumably undyed, but there are pictures of guys in red and in blue. The red and blue tunics are assiciated with Roman style tighter trousers and do not appear to have the edge yoke and seam embroidery.

Taking that thought further, maybe the applique patches are somehow unit related, like we use badges etc today? Given the non-uniformity of other clothing etc it would have been very useful.

Anyway, I have made the (heroic) decision to paint my Moors dressed in donated Byzantine style clothing but of no uniform style or colour, and with non uniform shields (that I had some figures that worked for this interpretation played no part in the decison ;D )

Phoideratoi are right now totally non uniform, but am thinking of doing colour or pattern related shields (liek all teh Arthurian players seem to do)

Am mulling over how to do the the Huns now.

Here's the prejudice at work for me: "Roman" means uniform. On the wargames table if Romans look just as polyglot as the Barbarians then what's the point? Romans should be staving off the hordes of individual warriors, ergo the Romans, ALL of them, ought to look uniform, unit by unit. There's no way that I would paint up "Romans" of anything to look like a pack of individual warriors….

Interesting about barbarians and uniformity. Roman statuary and art shows a high degree of uniformity in the depiction of barbarians within each nation. So on Trajan's column for example the Dacians are shown with quite a tight range of clothing, with uniform shields and with a narrow range of equipment. The comn of Aurelius is similar, but the clothing if the Germans is different from the Dacians. On the Trajan column other tribes submitting to the emperor are shown in distinctive clothing. On the Tropaeum Traiani the barbarians are shown with German style rolled top trousers, bare chests and Suebian knots, analogous to other Germans shown in the column at Rome. We may have our doubts about the accuracy of the sixteenth century drawings of the column of Theodosius, but however interpreted their depiction of the Goths is not only internally consistent, but matches that on other Late Roman artwork.
The depictions of Persians on the arch of Severus likewise show common kit and match to other depictions of Easterners. Now it is possible that the Roman artists are using their own oattern book for what barbarians ought to look like, but it is significant that the tribal costumes are differentiated consistently one from another.
If then the barbarians are, within tribe or nation , consistent, how different would the colour of their clothes be? Others will have an opinion, but i would lay odds on colured clothing being expensive and often confined to borders on garments or say the sewn on fringes of Dacian leaders cloaks. Most men would have clothing of the famous undyed wool or linen. Wool would be from fleece that varied from off white through a range of browns to black. Isn't it Polybius who speaks of Thracians in black tunics? This would give a barbarian tribe a very high degree of uniformity of style and a high degree of colour uniformity with the richest men , perhaps having a bit more colour.

On the wargames table if Romans look just as polyglot as the Barbarians then what's the point?

5th-6th century Romans were about as polyglot as they come

I pretty much paint all my "hairy barbarian" guys' clothes with a range of off whites, browns and ochres, a but of colour on cuffs and cloak fringes. Colours are in the shields and dracos. Rich warriors get better colours. I assume that "regulars" have access to more colourful clothes but I am persuaded that for an army supplied at state expense, cheap (aka undyed) cloth with sew-on patches for ID may be a very good option for the PBI.

I also agree that Declining Romans were probably not much different to their enemies, but they are Regulars dammit :) – thats why I've kept "regular" shields for the Romans and variety for the Barbarians.

Am tempted by matching colours etc for Phoideratoi as discussed above, I think they can still be used as Hairiy Barbarians as afaik some vestiges of Roman units existed in Hairy-conqurted lands for some time.

I think that is a very sensible approach

Praise indeed :)

One more…. Sassanids in Byzantine service.

I have some GB Sassanids, I'm thinking same model as for Phoideratoi – irregular dress, shields comforming to a rough colour, maybe a Byzantine officer.

Oh – another one more thing….

There seems to be a rather radical shift in armour, helmets etc from "Early" to "Maurikian" Byzantines in most refernce books. I wonder if it was so drastic, given how long it took things to change in those days – and thus how far one can push the "romanoid" looking Early Byzantine gear (and thus my army :D ) into the Dark Ages – maybe c 50 yaers on, so c 650 AD?

There is a false distinction made between the period if the classical looking Intercusa helmets of the 4th – 5th century and the spangenhelms which are generally shown as the headgear of Maurician Byzantines. The curvy helmets that are shown for Heraclian Byzantines and represented in the WRG and Osprey boojs are almost certainly wrong and based solely on Hellenising art. At least we should be very careful of putting them on real troops until one of these coal scuttles is found or at the very least illustrated in a contemporary depiction that shows practical kit rather than imagined heroic classical equipment.
Anyway, the good news for mixing the spangenhelm type helmets and the Intercisa helmets is that spangenhelms are being worn by Roman troops from the Ist century onwards. Raffaele D'Amato has reconstructed a Roman Legionary from the Tropaeum Traiani with a spangenhelm. Fair enough its an interpretation that could be challenged, but troops are pretty clearly shown with spangenhelms in the fourth century at the battle of the Milvian bridge and archaeologically spangenhelms are well attested in the fourth and fifth century. So if you worry about compatibility its probably better to use Maurician troops for earlier armies rather than the usual fourth century troops for later armies, though, frankly the world would not be astonished if you were to use earlier troops for a later army.