See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/289250676

The Third Equites Stablesiani at Cyrrhus

Article in Chiron · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 522

1 author:

Philip Rance
Freie Universität Berlin
87 PUBLICATIONS 177 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Philip Rance on 04 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CHIRON
MITTEILUNGEN
DER KOMMISSION FÜR
ALTE GESCHICHTE UND
EPIGRAPHIK
DES DEUTSCHEN
ARCHÄOLOGISCHEN
INSTITUTS

Sonderdruck aus Band 42 · 2012

DE GRUYTER
 Der CHIRON wird jahrgangsweise und in Leinen gebunden ausgeliefert.
Bestellungen nehmen alle Buchhandlungen entgegen.
Verlag: Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Druck und buchbinderische Verarbeitung: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
Anschrift der Redaktion: Kommission für Alte Geschichte und Epigraphik des
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Amalienstr. 73b, D-80799 München
redaktion-chiron@aek.dainst.de
 INHALT DES 42. BANDES (2012)

Juan Antonio Antolinos Marín – Borja Díaz Ariño, La societas argenti-

fodinarum Ilucronensium y la explotación de las minas romanas de Carthago Noua

Vassilios Aravantinos – Nikolaos Papazarkadas, hagemon›a: A New Treaty

from Classical Thebes

Jérémie Chameroy, Chronologie und Verbreitung der hellenistischen Bronzeprä-

gungen von Pergamon: der Beitrag der Fundmünzen

Edward Champlin, Seianus Augustus

Armin Eich – Peter Eich, Attius Cornelianus, v.p. praeses provinciae Pamfiliae (mit
einer Appendix von Marc Waelkens)

Aneurin Ellis-Evans, The Tyrants Dossier from Eresos

Wolfgang Günther, Neue Inschriften aus Didyma

Klaus Hallof – Klaus Herrmann – Sebastian Prignitz, Alte und neue In-
schriften aus Olympia I

Frédéric Hurlet, Pro consule uel pro praetore? À propos des titres et des pouvoirs
des gouverneurs prétoriens d’Afrique, de Sicile et de Sardaigne-Corse sous la Répu-
blique romaine (227–52 av. J.-C.)

Christopher P. Jones, Galen’s Travels

Annika B. Kuhn, Herodes Atticus and the Quintilii of Alexandria Troas: Elite Com-
petition and Status Relations in the Graeco-Roman East

Nino Luraghi – Anna Magnetto, The Controversy between Megalopolis and

Messene in a New Inscription from Messene. With an Appendix by Christian
Habicht

Pantelis Nigdelis – Anna Arvanitaki, Direct Taxation in Roman Macedonia:

A New Votive Inscription of a dekˇprvto« in an Unknown City of Western Pieria

Johannes Nollé, Boiōnē. Überlegungen zur Münzprägung, Lokalisierung und Ge-

schichte eines Polichnion in der Umgebung von Kyme

Anne-Valérie Pont, Aphrodisias, presque une île: la cité et ses réseaux d’Auguste à
249/250
Philip Rance, The Third Equites Stablesiani at Cyrrhus
Denis Rousset – Giorgos Zachos, Aus der Arbeit der «Inscriptiones Graecae».
Nouveaux monuments inscrits de Tithoréa en Phocide
Christof Schuler – Klaus Zimmermann, Neue Inschriften aus Patara I: Zur
Elite der Stadt in Hellenismus und früher Kaiserzeit
Frederik Juliaan Vervaet, The Praetorian Proconsuls of the Roman Republic
(211–52 BCE). A Constitutional Survey
Marco Vitale, Kibyra, die Tetrapolis und Murena: eine neue Freiheitsära in Bou-
bon und Kibyra?
Sofie Waebens, Imperial Policy and Changed Composition of the Auxilia: The
«Change in A.D. 140» Revisited
Peter Weiss, Septimius Severus’ Hochzeitstraum
 The Third Equites Stablesiani at Cyrrhus 347

PHILIP RANCE

The Third Equites Stablesiani at Cyrrhus

The Notitia dignitatum (400/401–ca.425) lists at least fifteen units of equites stable-
siani deployed throughout the empire, seven in the East, eight in the West.1 Four are
classed as vexillationes comitatenses and assigned to regional field armies, two under
the magister militum per Orientem, and two under the comes Africae.2 The remaining

The research for this paper was facilitated by a Humboldt-Forschungsstipendium für erfahrene
Wissenschaftler, hosted by the Institut für Byzantinistik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität,
München, 2009–11. Abbreviations: ACO = E. Schwartz – J. Straub (ed.), Acta conciliorum
oecumenicorum (ser. 1), 1914–84; Azéma I–IV = Y. Azéma (ed., Fr. trans.), Théodoret de
Cyr, Correspondance, Sources chrétiennes 40, 98, 111, 429, 1955–98, 4 vols; Brennan 1998 =
P. Brennan, Divide and Fall: the Separation of the Legionary Cavalry and the Fragmentation of
the Roman Empire, in: T. W. Hillard – R. A. Kearsley – C. E. V. Nixon – A. M. Nobbs (ed.),
Ancient History in a Modern University, II 238–44; Hoffmann 1969–70 = D. Hoffmann, Das
spätrömische Bewegungsheer und die Notitia Dignitatum; Jones 1964 = A. H. M. Jones, The
Later Roman Empire 284–602; Mansi = J. D. Mansi et al. (ed.), Sacrorum conciliorum nova et
amplissima collectio, 1759–1962; Millar 2009 = F. Millar, Imperial Government and the
Maintenance of Orthodoxy: Justin I and Irregularities at Cyrrhus in 520, SCI 28, 117–38;
PG = Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne, 1857–1912; Schor 2011 =
A. M. Schor, Theodoret’s People. Social Networks and Religious Conflict in Late Roman Syria;
Speidel 1974 = M. P. Speidel, Stablesiani. The Raising of New Cavalry Units During the Crisis
of the Roman Empire, Chiron 4, 541–46, repr. in: idem, Roman Army Studies 1, 1984, 391–96;
Speidel 2008 = M. P. Speidel, Das Heer, in: K.-P. Johne – U. Hartmann – T. Gerhardt
(ed.), Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser, Krise und Transformation des römischen Reiches im 3. Jahr-
hundert n. Chr. (235–284), I 673–90; Urbainczyk 2002 = T. Urbainczyk, Theodoret of
Cyrrhus. The Bishop and the Holy Man.
1 For the date of the Notitia dignitatum see Jones 1964, 1417–24; Hoffmann 1969–70,

I 25–53; with refinements by C. Zuckerman, Comtes et ducs en Égypte autour de l’an 400
et la date de la Notitia Dignitatum Orientis, AntTard 6, 1998, 137–47; and additional remarks
by E. L. Wheeler, Notitia Dignitatum, Or. 38 and Roman Deployment in Colchis: Assessing
Recent Views, in: B. Cabouret – A. Groslambert – C. Wolff (ed.), Visions de l’Occident
romain. Hommages à Y. le Bohec, 2012, II 621–76 at 621–22.
2 ND Or. 7.29–30; Oc. 6.21 = 6.64 = 7.182, 6.39 = 6.82 = 7.180. Apparent internal inconsist-

ency in the Notitia dignitatum may reflect subsequent transfers and negligence in revising the
document. The occidental part registers two units of equites stablesiani in the general listing of
vexillationes comitatenses under the magister equitum praesentalis (Oc. 6.21 = 6.64, 6.39 = 6.82),
but three units occur in the distributio numerorum, two under the comes Africae (7.180, 182) and
a third under the comes Britanniarum (7.203). The latter unit, styled simply equites stablesiani,
348 Philip Rance

eleven units are classed as limitanei and stationed in frontier provinces under the
command of duces or comites limitis, with one unit each in Egypt, Moesia II, Dacia
Ripensis, Pannonia I, Valeria, Britannia, two in Scythia and three in Raetia.3 The dis-
tribution of the equites stablesiani broadly coincides with the deployment of other cat-
egories of cavalry vexillatio created between the 260s and 290s and typically styled
equites, principally equites Mauri, equites Dalmatae, equites scutarii and equites pro-
moti. It is generally agreed that these vexillationes originally constituted the main
mounted component of the mobile forces attached to the comitatus of the emperor(s)
during the military instability of the second half of the third century. Later, probably
under Diocletian and Constantine, they were in many instances permanently allo-
cated to the garrisons of provinces along the newly stabilised frontiers.4 Additional
evidence for equites stablesiani is supplied by epigraphic sources, in all cases predating
the Notitia, sometimes by up to a century or more. Five funerary inscriptions appear
to commemorate the personnel of two of the units of equites stablesiani listed in the
Notitia.5 Two further memorials document two units of equites stablesiani not listed in

has been identified as a doublet of the equites stablesiani Gariannonenses listed under the comes
litoris Saxonici (28.17), and thus transferred to the field army of the comes Britanniarum at a later
stage in the textual evolution of the Notitia. See Hoffmann 1969–70, I 171, 252, 352; M. W. C.
Hassall, The Historical Background and Military Units of the Saxon Shore, in: D. E. John-
ston (ed.), The Saxon Shore, CBA Research Report 18, 1977, 7–10.
3 ND Or. 28.16, 39.14–15, 40.17, 42.19; Oc. 28.17 = 7.203, 33.27; 34.15; 35.14–16.
4 The literature is extensive, see selectively E. Ritterling, Zum römischen Heerwesen des

ausgehenden dritten Jahrhunderts, in: Festschrift zu Otto Hirschfelds 60. Geburtstage, 1903,
345–49; A. Alföldi, Der Usurpator Aureolus und die Kavalleriereform des Gallienus,
ZfNum 37, 1927, 197–212; R. Saxer, Untersuchungen zu den Vexillationen des römischen Kai-
serheeres von Augustus bis Diokletian, 1967, 53–62, 123–25; P. K. Cooper, The Third-Century
Origins of the «New» Roman Army, DPhil. Diss. Oxford University 1968, 346–85; Hoffmann
1969–70, I 243–79; Speidel 1974; idem, Ethnic Units in the Roman Army, in: ANRW II 3, 1975,
202–31 at 220–26, repr. in: idem, Roman Army Studies 1, 1984, 117–47; H.-G. Simon, Die Re-
formen der Reiterei unter Kaiser Gallien, in: W. Eck – H. Galsterer – H. Wolff (ed.), Stu-
dien zur antiken Sozialgeschichte. Festschrift Friedrich Vittinghoff, 1980, 435–52; B. Bleck-
mann, Die Reichskrise des III. Jahrhunderts in der spätantiken und byzantinischen
Geschichtsschreibung, 1992, 226–37; Brennan 1998; A. Lewin, The Egyptian cunei, Tyche 18,
2003, 73–76; Speidel 2008, 677–84.
5 Three memorials to soldiers of equites stablesiani were found in Mauretania Caesariensis:

CIL VIII 8490 = 20350 = ILS 2794 (Sitifis/Sétif; 284–312); AE 1916.7 = 8 (Sitifis/Sétif; 284–312);
AE 1937.35 (Thamallula/Ras el Oued; pre 312). These men presumably belonged to the equites
stablesiani Africani (ND Oc. 6.21 = 6.64 [Africani] = 7.182 [seniores]), see Hoffmann 1969–70,
I 252 nn. 496–97. Two similar memorials occur in Venetia et Histria: CIL V 4376 = ILS 2793 (Bri-
xia/Brescia; 284–312): vexil(latio) eq(uitum) stablesianorum; AE 1974.342 (Colombara; the de-
ceased apparently drowned at Aquileia): ex n(umero) stabl(esianorum). B. Brusin, I.Aquileia II
2858 reads alternatively ex(archus) n(umeri) eq(uitum) stabl(e)s(ianorum). This unit may have
been the equites stablesiani Italiciani before its transfer to Africa (ND Oc. 6.39 = 6.82 = 7.180),
but the possibility of a different unit, not listed in the Notitia, cannot be excluded; see Hoff-
 The Third Equites Stablesiani at Cyrrhus 349

the Notitia, which seem to have been destroyed, disbanded, reorganised or renamed
before its composition.6 The existence of yet more units, though currently undocu-
mented, can be inferred from regimental titles in both the Notitia and the epigraphic
record.7 The origin of the equites stablesiani and the significance of their designation
remain uncertain, as none of the explanations proposed so far is entirely convincing.8

mann 1969–70, I 252 n. 498, 263, although publication of the second inscription postdates his
analysis and invalidates some of his conjectures.
6 First, SEG 6, 1932, 187 (Sebaste, Phrygia; late IV): $pÌ kØrta« stablhsianân. For differing

interpretations see [W.] Ruge, RE 3 A 2, 1929, 1925–26 s. v. Stablesianoi; Hoffmann 1969–70,

I 263; II 108 n. 570; Speidel 1974, 545. Second, AE 1927.153 = 1974.466 (Deurne, Germania
inferior; early IV): (vexillatio equitum) stablesia(norum) VI. See H. Klumbach (ed.), Spät-
römische Gardehelme, 1973, 60, pl. 19–21, with dating evidence discussed at 66–72. Some
scholars have discerned another possible witness to equites stablesiani in CIL III 371 = ILS 2783 =
IK-18 482 (Cyzicus/Erdek): vixillatione fesianesa; see T. Mommsen in CIL III 1, 72; H. Dessau
in ILS I 550; Hoffmann, 1969–70, II 199 n. 85.
7 The equites secundi stablesiani and equites tertii stablesiani, placed under the command of the

magister militum per Orientem (ND Or. 7.29–30), signal the prior existence of an unattested
equites primi stablesiani, if this unit is not to be identified with the otherwise undistinguished
equites stablesiani allocated to the comes Aegypti and stationed at Pelusium (Or. 28.16). Similarly,
the (vexillatio equitum) stablesia(norum) VI documented in AE 1927.153 = 1974.466 (Deurne)
testifies to the existence of equites sexti stablesiani, not found in the Notitia, and thus also to the
loss or redesignation of at least two other units, quarti and quinti, in this numerical sequence.
For regimental numeration in general see Hoffmann 1969–70, I 262–64; R. Scharf, Equites
Dalmatae und cunei Dalmatarum in der Spätantike, ZPE 135, 2001, 185–93; Speidel 2008,
679–80, 682–83.
8 Hoffmann 1969–70, 251–52 suggested that the equites stablesiani were created from an

existing (but hypothetical) corps of «Pferde- und Troßknechte», which he imagines was attached
to the new cavalry forces created under Gallienus (260–68). Speidel 1974 argued that units of
equites stablesiani were raised from stratores, soldiers (both legionary and auxiliary) previously
seconded to the staff of provincial governors as equerries, bodyguards and grooms, who, in the
dire military emergencies of the third century, were constituted as independent cavalry regi-
ments, along similar lines to the creation of equites promoti from the equites legionis in the same
period. Speidel supposed that the commanding officers of these units may have been entitled
(unattested) stablensis or stabulensis, although the linguistic dimension of this argument is
strained. See likewise M. P. Speidel, Stablesiani, RE Suppl. 14, 1974, 743–44. Alternatively,
Brennan 1998, 243 rightly stresses the regionality of military developments during the Tet-
rarchy. He draws attention to the western orientation of equites stablesiani within the original tet-
rarchic dispositions still traceable in the Notitia, observing that the units of equites stablesiani
stationed in Egypt and in the Danubian provinces west of Noricum are the result of subsequent
modifications undertaken by Constantine. Brennan conjectures that equites stablesiani may be
a western counterpart to equites promoti, which were created from the equites legionis in the east-
ern part of the empire controlled by Diocletian and Galerius. Most recently, Speidel 2008,
682–83, rejecting his earlier hypothesis (1974), identifies equites stablesiani as those equites, of
unspecified origin, which were temporarily concentrated in northern Italy during the reign of
Gallienus and placed under the command of Aureolus. On the basis of Zonaras, Epit. hist. 12.24:
tân basilikân ¬ppvn frontist‹«, Speidel identifies Aureolus as stabulensis or «Vorsteher des
kaiserlichen Marstalls», from whose office these units drew their regimental titulature.
350 Philip Rance

In any case, the initial institution of this type of vexillatio, allowing for the likelihood
that some regiments were later creations, belongs to the large-scale reorganisation and
augmentation of the Roman cavalry which began during the reign of Gallienus
(260–68) and continued under the Tetrarchy (285–324).9
Previous studies, considering the Notitia dignitatum to be the latest evidence for
equites stablesiani, have overlooked two subsequent sources. Both concern the city of
Cyrrhus in the province of Euphratensis and, directly or indirectly, its celebrated
bishop Theodoret (in office 423–57).10 The first source is a letter by Theodoret, dated
towards the end of 432 or beginning of 433. It concerns the immediate consequences
of the First Council of Ephesus in 431, at which the party of Cyril, Archbishop of Alex-
andria, triumphed over the ‹two-nature› Christology of the Antiochene party and
secured the deposition of Nestorius, Archbishop of Constantinople (428–31). Sub-
sequently Theodoret, a proponent of the Antiochene cause, was active in state-spon-
sored attempts to reconcile the contending parties, but this endeavour alienated some
of his own associates and he became obliged to defend himself against charges of
treachery. He addressed a series of letters to his more intractable colleagues, including
a response to his metropolitan, Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis, who headed the ir-
reconcilable partisans of Nestorius.11

9 There are two criteria for dating. First, the regimental precedence implied by their listing

in the Notitia dignitatum suggests that equites stablesiani were first created later than equites
Dalmatae, documented from 268, but before equites promoti, which Brennan 1998 conclusively
assigns to the reign of Diocletian, see e.g. ND Or. 7.27–31, 42.13–19; Oc. 28.16–17. The relative
position and/or titulature (i.e. seniores/iuniores or regional designations) of other units of equites
stablesiani clearly indicate later developments or subdivisions based on cadres. Second, in the
epigraphic record the use of the imperial gentilicium Valerius by six of the personnel of two units
of equites stablesiani indicates service during the Tetrarchy and before Flavius supplanted Va-
lerius in the nomenclature of soldiers and civil officials in territories controlled by Constantine I,
cf. CIL VIII 8490 = 20350 = ILS 2794 (Sitifis/Sétif); AE 1916.7 = 8 (Sitifis/Sétif); CIL V 4376 = ILS
2793 (Brixia/Brescia). See Hoffmann 1969–70, I 252 nn. 494–95, 263; Speidel 1974, 545. The
gentilicium Aurelius borne by two other men, possibly belonging to one of the same units, may
point to an even earlier date of creation, cf. AE 1937.35 (Thamallula/Ras el Oued). For nomen-
clature as a dating criterion in late Roman military contexts see J. G. Keenan, The Names
Flavius and Aurelius as Status Designations in Later Roman Egypt, ZPE 11, 1973, 33–63;
M. P. Speidel, Cataphractarii clibanarii and the Rise of the Later Roman Mailed Cavalry:
a Gravestone from Claudiopolis in Bithynia, EA 4, 1984, 151–56, repr. in: idem, Roman Army
Studies 2, 1992, 406–13; B. Salway, What’s in a Name? A Survey of Roman Onomastic Practice
from ca. 700 B.C. to A.D. 700, JRS 84, 1994, 124–45 at 137–40; U. Kraft, Eine Reitermatrikel
der Tetrarchenzeit aus Ägypten (P.Strasb. L 8), APF 54, 2008, 17–78 at 65–66.
10 For a convenient summary of Theodoret’s life and works see Urbainczyk 2002, 3–5,

10–28 with older bibliography. His personal connections and cultural milieu are now examined
by Schor 2011.
11 For the historical and theological context see recently Urbainczyk 2002, 23–26; Schor

2011, 81–109. For Theodoret’s relationship and correspondence with Alexander, Bishop of Hiera-
polis, see Azéma IV 24–26; Schor 2011, 100–108. The prominent role of Euphratensis in the
ensuing doctrinal disputes is examined by Millar 2009, 127–34.
 The Third Equites Stablesiani at Cyrrhus 351

Theodoret’s letter to Alexander survives owing to complex textual and historical

circumstances. The original Greek text is lost but its content and, to some extent, word-
ing are preserved in a later Latin translation incorporated into the Synodicon of Rus-
ticus. The Synodicon is a lengthy compendium of originally Greek documents,
including conciliar acta and episcopal correspondence, which were arranged and
translated into Latin by Rusticus, a Roman deacon and nephew of Pope Vigilius, at
Constantinople in the later 560s. The sole manuscript witness is the twelfth-century
codex Casinensis 2, in which the Synodicon forms the second half of the so-called Col-
lectio Casinensis. Rusticus’ objective, among other matters, was to provide western
readers with a selective polemical record of the aftermath of the First Council of
Ephesus in 431, with a view to refuting the recent anathematizing of some of Theodo-
ret’s writings in the so-called ‹Three Chapters› controversy (543–53).12 Rusticus drew
extensively on an existing documentary compilation entitled ‹Tragoedia›, now lost,
which had been compiled and annotated more than a century earlier by comes Ire-
naeus, a prominent courtier and supporter of the Antiochene party, who had attended
the First Council of Ephesus. Irenaeus originally assembled this dossier of apologetic
material in ca. 435–36 with the aim of vindicating his friend Nestorius.13 The Latin
translation of Theodoret’s letter to Alexander preserved in the Synodicon is preceded
by a superscription which indicates that Rusticus derived the Greek text from Ire-
naeus’ Tragoedia. The textual transmission of this letter can therefore be traced back
to an epistolary collection put together within Theodoret’s lifetime.14
For the present purposes the relevant passage concerns Theodoret’s efforts to justify
his conduct by pointing out to his superior the many occasions in the past when he
had expressed his doctrinal views but was never previously suspected of heresy.
Schwartz’s critical edition reads:

12 Rusticus’ Synodicon is edited by E. Schwartz in ACO I.3–4 (1922–23). For the theologi-

cal and historical background see R. M. Price, The Three Chapters Controversy and the Coun-
cil of Chalcedon, in: C. Chazelle – C. Cubit (ed.), The Crisis of the Oikoumene: the Three
Chapters and the Failed Quest for Unity in the Sixth-Century Mediterranean, 2007, 17–38.
13 For Irenaeus see PLRE II 624–25, Irenaeus2. The scope and character of the Tragoedia are

examined by E. Schwartz, Aus den Akten des Concils von Chalkedon, Abh. Bayer. Akad. d.
Wiss., phil.-hist. Abt. 32.2, 1925, 13–20; and the prefaces in ACO I.3 xi-xvii, I.42 viii-xvi; F. Mil-
lar, A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief under Theodosius II, 408–450, 2006, 157–84,
esp. 170–81; idem, Community, Religion and Language in the Middle Euphrates Zone in Late
Antiquity, SCI 27, 2008, 67–94, esp. 77–80, 91–93. Irenaeus was himself the recipient of several
letters from Theodoret: ep. 14 (Coll. Pat.); 3, 12, 16, 35 (Coll. Sirm.).
14 The codex Casinensis 2 (= Collectio Casinensis ep. 161) transmits the superscription Epis-

tula Theodoreti rescripta ad Alexandrum Hieropolitanum, !sicut" Irinaeus dicit. The critical edi-
tion is by E. Schwartz in ACO I.42 (1922–23) 108.32–109.12 (= Mansi V 849B-850A = PG 84
680C-681B); reprinted with French trans. in Azéma IV 196–99 (ep. 14), with remarks at 50–52,
59–60 and dating at 182 n. 2.
352 Philip Rance

Et haec autem pro condescensione suscepi et putans nec tuam contradicere sanctitatem;
haec vero in Antiochia et in Beroea et in Hierapoli sumus saepius collocuti; haec et
domino meo sanctissimo et Deo amicissimo episcopo Andreae per honorandissimum et
reverentissimum decurionem [MS diaconum] fortissimorum tertio stabilisianorum, dum
illic adveniret, scripsi (ACO I.42 109.5–9 = Azéma IV 198.21–7, ep. 14).
«Moreover, these views I embraced upon your sufferance and thinking that Your
Sanctity did not hold any objection; for in truth we have rather often discussed these
views in Antioch and Beroea and Hierapolis, and I also communicated them in writ-
ing to my lord the most holy and most dear to God Bishop Andrew through a most
honourable and most reverend decurio [MS diaconus] of the most courageous Third
Stablesiani, when he was passing that way.»
Theodoret refers to Andrew, Bishop of Samosata, in the north of Euphratensis, who
broadly shared his reconciliatory approach. Andrew was the addressee of two pre-
vious letters by Theodoret, also preserved in Latin translation in both the Synodicon
and other collections. The second of these letters, dated to autumn 432, appears to be
the correspondence mentioned here.15 There can be no doubt as to the identity of the
military unit styled fortissimorum tertio stabilisianorum. Drawn up three decades pre-
viously, the Notitia dignitatum (Or. 7.29–30) lists the equites secundi stablesiani and
equites tertii stablesiani among the vexillationes comitatenses assigned to the command
of the magister militum per Orientem.
The title and status of the messenger require clarification owing to a tangled edi-
torial history dating back to the earliest editions. The unique manuscript witness,
codex Casinensis 2, reads here diaconum. As early as 1683, Étienne Baluze printed
diaconum but in a footnote proposed the emendation decanum.16 Baluze’s anno-
tation was reprinted in standard collections of conciliar and patristic sources, notably
by Gian Domenico Mansi (1761) and, indirectly, by Jacques-Paul Migne
(1860).17 In his critical edition Eduard Schwartz (1922–23) emended diaconum to
decurionem, which is less likely than decanum, on both palaeographical and historical
grounds.18 Subsequently Yvan Azéma (1998) reprinted Schwartz’s text, but with-

15 For Andrew, Bishop of Samosata, see P. Évieux, André de Samosate. Un adversaire de

Cyrille d’Alexandrie durant la crise, REByz 32, 1974, 253–300; Azéma IV 26–27. For the two
letters see Azéma IV 72–79 (ep. 2ab, dated 431), 170–75 (ep. 10ab, autumn 432).
16 É. Baluze (Baluzius) (ed.), Nova Collectio Conciliorum, 1683, I 775, note a, «Puto repo-

nendum decanum fortissimorum tertio stabilisianorum. Habetur in codice Theodosiano titulus

De decanis.» The editio princeps had been published the previous year in: C. Lupus (ed.), Ad
Ephesinum Concilium variorum Patrum epistolae, ex manuscripto Cassinensis Bibliothecae
codice desumptae, 1682, 159–60, who printed diaconum without comment.
17 Mansi V, 1761, 849D (with note a) reprints Baluze’s text and annotation. J.-P. Migne,

PG 84, 1860, 681 n. 27 reprints J. L. Schulze, Theodoreti Opera omnia, 1769–74, which
incorporates Baluze’s annotation at V 717 n. 3 (ascribed to ‹B.›, see V 608 for identification of
Baluze).
18 ACO I 42, 1922–23, 109.8 app. crit.
 The Third Equites Stablesiani at Cyrrhus 353

out its apparatus criticus and neglecting to alert readers to the editorial intervention;
indeed Azéma himself appears to be unaware of the textual history.19 These conjec-
tures are complicated by the fact that neither decurio nor decanus is otherwise docu-
mented as an officer-grade in the hierarchy of a late Roman cavalry vexillatio, and so,
whatever Greek word Theodoret originally employed, it is highly unlikely that Rusti-
cus (still less Theodoret) could have used either term as a valid title or terminus tech-
nicus. Fortunately the wider textual evidence eliminates the need for such guessing
games. Literary, epigraphic and papyrological sources, from the first half of the fifth
century onwards, attest to priests and deacons assigned to the staff of specific regi-
ments for their spiritual and pastoral guidance.20 Furthermore, an examination of
Theodoret’s surviving correspondence in Greek supplies an exact parallel. In a letter to
Eusebius, Bishop of Ancyra, dated to the early 440s, Theodoret commends the cour-
ier, a «most reverend deacon» (Ç e\labwstato« diˇkono«) named Agapetus, who has
recently been appointed as a regimental chaplain to an unspecified unit stationed
in Thrace. Theodoret implies that this was a widespread and perhaps universal prac-
tice.21 Above all, the honorifics honorandissimum et reverentissimum accorded to the

19 Azéma IV, 1998, 198.26. Azéma appends a note (198–99 n. 3) on the rarity of the title
decurio in the late Roman army, but does not acknowledge that the term is in fact Schwartz’s
emendation.
20 The evidence is assembled and variously interpreted by A. H. M. Jones, Military Chaplains

in the Roman Army, HThR 46, 1953, 239–40; Jones 1964, 632–33; R. S. O. Tomlin, Christian-
ity and the Roman Army, in: S. N. C. Lieu – D. Montserrat (ed.), Constantine: History, His-
toriography and Legend, 1998, 21–51 at 27–28; B. Palme (ed.), Corpus Papyrorum Raineri
XXIV.1: Griechische Texte XVII. Dokumente zu Verwaltung und Militär aus dem spätantiken
Ägypten, 2002, 92–97; R. Haensch, La christianisation de l’armée romaine, in: Y. Le Bohec –
C. Wolff (ed.), L’armée romaine de Dioclétien à Valentinien Ier. Actes du Congrès de Lyon,
12–14 sept. 2002, 2004, 525–32 esp. 525–27; A. D. Lee, War in Late Antiquity. A Social History,
2007, 183, 191–92. Theodoret’s letter to Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis, in 432/33 (Azéma IV
198, ep. 14), now freed of erroneous emendation, should be included in future discussions. I plan
to pursue this topic elsewhere.
21 Theodoret, ep. 2 (Coll. Pat.): O\ g@r mfinon öùnh kaÏ pfilei« kaÏ kØma« kaÏ $groŒ« kaÏ

ãsxati@« åù÷noysi tá« e\sebe›a« oÅ trfifimoi kaÏ oÅ tá« Åervs÷nh« łjivmwnoi, $ll@ kaÏ a\t@ tân
strativtân t@ tˇgmata, ãn pfilesi kaÏ kØmai« diˇgonta, $fiervmwnoy« öxei nomwa«. To÷tvn eë«
ãsti kaÏ Ç e\labwstato« diˇkono« [gaphtfi«, ¯« a\xeÖ mÍn pfilin tÎn tá« Łmetwra« ãparx›a«
mhtrfipolin, strativtikÌn dÍ tˇgma ãtˇxùh prÌ« t@ ùeÖa ®ym›zein· oí dÎ xˇrin kaÏ nÜn ãpÏ tÎn
Ur¦khn $páren· ãkeÖ g@r to÷toy symba›nei diˇgein tÌn $riùmfin (Azéma I 75.2–10); «For not
only do men nourished on piety and those who have been deemed worthy of the priesthood now
direct peoples and cities and villages and fields and frontiers, but also the regiments of soldiers,
stationed in cities and villages, have their own consecrated shepherds. And one of these is
the most reverend deacon Agapetus, who proudly claims as his city the metropolis of our prov-
ince, and who has been appointed to guide a military regiment in divine matters. And on this
account he has now set out for Thrace, for his unit happens to be stationed there.» For the
date see Azéma I 74 n. 4. This Agapetus is possibly to be identified with the homonymous
priest (presbeyt‹«) whom Theodoret mentions as the bearer of ep. 47 (Coll. Pat.) (Azéma
I 117.20–22); see remarks of Azéma I 75 n. 2, 117 n. 4.
354 Philip Rance

unnamed messenger from the third equites stablesiani leave no doubt that he is a
clergyman and not a soldier.22 The textual interventions of Baluze and Schwartz
were therefore both invalid and unnecessary; the received reading diaconum is correct.
In 432, Theodoret wrote a letter to his episcopal colleague at Samosata and entrusted
its delivery to a diaconus in the third equites stablesiani, who happened to be journey-
ing in that direction.
Detailed discussion of other individual points of interest in this letter will be post-
poned until after the introduction of the second source, as the two texts share certain
features. The second document again concerns events in Cyrrhus, but in this instance
almost a century later, in 520. In August of that year Justin I (518–27) wrote a letter to
Hypatius, magister militum per Orientem, instructing him to investigate alleged reli-
gious irregularities in the city.23 It has been persuasively argued that this correspondence
belongs to a category of imperial ordinance or directive known as a «divine pragmatic
sanction» (ùeÖo« pragmatikÌ« t÷po«), which conveyed precise instructions relating to

22 The phrase Ç e\labwstato« diˇkono«, applied to Agapetus in ep. 2 (Coll. Pat.), equates di-

rectly to reverentissimum diaconum in the manuscript reading of Theodoret’s letter to Alexander.

In inscriptions, papyri, epistolography and conciliar acta the epithet e\labwstato« / reverentis-
simus is routinely bestowed on ecclesiastical personages – bishops, archimandrites, archdeacons,
deacons, subdeacons, priests, monks, lectors. See Liddell – Scott – Jones s.v. e\lab‹«, II.2;
G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, 1961–68, 567, s.v. e\lab‹«, 1.c. For e\labwstato« /
reverentissimus see O. Hornickel, Ehren- und Rangprädikate in den Papyrusurkunden. Ein
Beitrag zum römischen und byzantinischen Titelwesen, 1930, 13–14; E. Chrysos, Die Bischofs-
listen des V. Ökumenischen Konzils (553), 1966, 61–63, 67, 69, 73–74. In the letters of Theodoret
that survive in Latin translation three other figures are addressed or referred to as reverentissi-
mus; two are bishops, the other a priest: cf. ep. 23c (Azéma IV 256.3): Nestorius, (former)
Bishop of Constantinople, autumn 433; ep. 29 (Coll. Cas. 239 = IV 294.5–6): Alexander, Bishop
of Hierapolis, ca. late 434; ep. 30 (Coll. Cas. 248 = IV 300.25–6): Basil, a priest, ca. late 434. The
last specimen, another of the letters translated into Latin by Rusticus in his Synodicon, is es-
pecially instructive, in that Basil, like our messenger, is described as honorandissimum et reve-
rentissimum presbyterem. This wording in turn undoubtedly translates the formula timiØtato«
kaÏ e\labwstato«, found in the Greek corpora of Theodoret’s letters, which the author employs
in reference to four deacons, a priest and a lector. Cf. Coll. Sirm. 11.19 (lector); 24.10 (deacon);
37.22 (deacon); 132.9 (two deacons); 133.26 (priest). Cf. likewise a synodical letter of the Council
of Constantinople in 382 quoted in Theodoret, HE 5.9 (in reference to bishops). Beyond these
instances, Theodoret uses e\labwstato«, alone or in combination with other honorific adjec-
tives, only in connection with ecclesiastical personnel: Coll. Pat. 33.17 (priest); 46.7 (deacon);
Coll. Sirm. 10.13 (subdeacon); 47.6 (bishop); 70.23 (deacons); 81.59 (clergy); 83.45 (clergy); 86.8
(priests), 33 (clergy); 112.54, 85 (clergy); 113.130 (priests/rural bishops); 114.1 (priest); 115.4
(priest); 126.59 (priest/archimandrite).
23 On this episode see now in detail Millar 2009. See also A. A. Vasiliev, Justin the First: an

Introduction to the Epoch of Justinian the Great, 1950, 232–33, 242; W. E. Kaegi, Byzantine
Military Unrest, 471–843: An Interpretation, 1981, 82–83, 85–86; B. Croke, Justinian under
Justin: Reconfiguring a Reign, ByzZ 100, 2007, 13–56 at 35–36. For Hypatius see PLRE II, Hypa-
tius6, with G. Greatrex, Flavius Hypatius, quem vidit validum Parthus sensitque timendum.
An Investigation of his Career, Byzantion 66, 1996, 120–42.
 The Third Equites Stablesiani at Cyrrhus 355

a specific episode or circumstances without expressing or embodying a general legal

principle.24 In his letter Justin explains that he had read (lecta sunt nobis) a routine re-
port written by the defensor civitatis of Antioch concerning juridical proceedings con-
ducted (gesta confecta) before him at Antioch, «in which were inserted the testimony of
soldiers who gave evidence» (quibus inferebantur testimonia militum significantium).
These soldiers testified that they had witnessed a ceremony at Cyrrhus, in which two
local clergymen, Andronicus and George, had mounted a portrait of the late Bishop
Theodoret on a cart and made a processional entry into the city singing psalms. As
some of Theodoret’s opinions, though not yet officially condemned, had since fallen
under suspicion of Nestorian heresy, such a demonstration was of concern to the court
in Constantinople, especially given Justin’s desire to enforce Chalcedonian orthodoxy.
It was further alleged, apparently by the same soldiers, that following the subsequent
arrival of the newly elected bishop, Sergius, he too had convoked an assembly (collectio)
at Cyrrhus in honour of Theodoret together with two other similarly controversial
theologians, Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and even Nestorius,
whom Sergius had reportedly claimed to be a martyr. Justin expresses formal surprise
at Hypatius’ ignorance of or inaction with regard to such legal proceedings transacted
in Antioch, his own headquarters. The emperor continues that, shortly afterwards, he
had read a second set of court proceedings (gesta), in this case conducted before the de-
fensor civitatis of Cyrrhus, as reported in documentation supplied by the secretaries
(responsales) of Bishop Sergius, apparently a record of an investigation carried out lo-
cally in response to the allegations made previously by the soldiers at Antioch. These
proceedings, in contrast, contain statements by many witnesses (multorum voces) to
the effect that no assembly in honour of Nestorius had in fact taken place. Justin ob-
serves that this version of events is supported by petitions (preces) from Sergius and
other bishops of the province of Euphratensis, in which they declare their unanimous
rejection of Nestorius and his views. Faced with conflicting testimonies, Justin enjoins
the magister militum to conduct an urgent enquiry into these matters, whereby he is to
interview the alleged participants and witnesses, and specifically the soldiers who
made the original allegation before the defensor civitatis of Antioch:
sed convocare quidem sine dilatione Cyrestenae civitatis episcopum ibi degentem, sicut
audivimus, trahere autem ad se milites etiam, qui testimonia in gestis Antiochiae confec-
tis praestitisse inveniuntur de numero tertio stabilisianorum, nec non etiam Andronicum
et Georgium, qui ea quae de imagine dicta sunt, fecisse dicuntur … (ACO IV.1 200.2–6).
«summon without delay the bishop of Cyrrhus [Sergius] residing there, as we have
heard, and also bring before you those soldiers from the unit of the Third Stablesiani
who are found to have given evidence at the proceedings at Antioch, and also An-

24 See Millar 2009, 122–23, with 125–27 for analysis of the procedures and governmental

mechanisms delineated in the letter. On this type of ordinance see generally D. Feissel, Un res-
crit de Justinien découvert à Didymes (1er avril 533), Chiron 34, 2004, 285–365, esp. 307–10.
356 Philip Rance

dronicus and George, who are alleged to have performed what was reported about the
portrait [of Theodoret] …»
Justin stipulates precisely the points of fact that Hypatius is to establish and lays great
emphasis on an immediate and thorough investigation:
et si quidem inveniantur milites per omnia falsa dixisse et neque pro imagine neque
pro collectione vera dixisse, non tantum ea quae in Nestorium referuntur, sed etiam illa
quae in Theodoretum et Theodorum et Diodorum, mox fortissimo numero eiciantur, in
quo noscuntur militare, et omnibus tormentis eorum corpora crucientur (ACO IV.1
200.15–18).
«If the soldiers are found to have lied on any of these matters, and to have told the
truth about neither the portrait nor the assembly, not only what relates to Nestorius
but also to Theodoret, Theodore and Diodorus, they are to be immediately expelled
from the most courageous unit in which they are known to serve, and their bodies are
to be subjected to every torture.»
To assist the magister militum in his enquiries the emperor gives orders that the orig-
inal record of the juridical proceedings from Cyrrhus and copies of those from Anti-
och be sent to Hypatius.
The documentation for these events again comes to us by a circuitous route. The
text of Justin’s letter (epistola) of 520, shorn of its address and preambular context, is
preserved as an extract within the acta of the Fifth Ecumenical Council convened by
Justinian at Constantinople in May-June 553. On that emperor’s instructions, the
quaestor sacri palatii, Constantine, read out Justin’s letter towards the end of an ora-
tion he delivered during the seventh and penultimate session of the council on 26 May.
As a supplementary matter, Constantine introduced details of the episode at Cyrrhus
thirty-three years earlier in order to demonstrate that Justinian’s attitude to Theodoret
and the other theologians implicated in the current ‹Three Chapters› controversy did
not, as some bishops had alleged, deviate from the policy of Justin I, his (adoptive)
father and predecessor.25 Consequently a question hangs over the current form and
language of the letter. There can be no doubt that in 520 Justin wrote to Hypatius in
Latin, but at the council in 553 Constantine would have addressed the assembled
bishops in Greek, which entailed quotation of all Latin documents in Greek trans-
lation. The extant acta are in turn a Latin translation of those conciliar proceedings
transacted in Greek. It remains uncertain, therefore, whether the received text of Jus-
tin’s letter is a copy of the original, as deposited in an imperial archive, or a Latin re-
translation of a Greek version prepared for the benefit of the bishops.26

25 J. Straub (ed.), ACO IV.1, 1971, 186.35–187.6 (summary), 199.22–200.27 (text) (= Mansi

IX 349, 364B-365D). For the ‹Three Chapters› controversy see Price (n. 12) with older bib-
liography. For the quaestor Constantine see PLRE IIIA, Constantinus4.
26 See the remarks of Millar 2009, 122–23.
 The Third Equites Stablesiani at Cyrrhus 357

The two documents examined here contain valuable data relating to the history of
the late Roman army in Oriens. First, we learn that the third regiment of equites stable-
siani, created between the 260s and 290s, and assigned to the field army of the magister
militum per Orientem in the Notitia dignitatum (400/401), was based in proximity to
Cyrrhus in Euphratensis in 432/33 and was apparently stationed in the same locality
in 520. The evidence for equites stablesiani is therefore extended by some 120 years
into the early sixth century. This individual case is consistent with the broader evi-
dence for the long-term continuity of East Roman regimental structures and titula-
ture between the late third and late sixth centuries, and sometimes beyond.
Second, even accepting the difficulties posed by the transmission and/or translation
of both documents, the terms used to describe this unit of equites stablesiani exhibit
ambiguities typical of late Roman regimental titulature. The Notitia dignitatum des-
ignates the unit as equites tertii stablesiani. In contrast, Rusticus’ Latin rendering of
Theodoret’s letter mentions a diaconum fortissimorum tertio stabilisianorum, while
Justin’s letter refers to soldiers de numero tertio stabilisianorum. If the latter text had
alone survived, the interpretation ‹from the third unit of stablesiani› would be un-
doubted, on the assumption that tertio here is an ablative adjective qualifying numero.
In the former case, however, grammar and syntax demand that tertio must have a dif-
ferent function. A wider survey of the evidence of the Notitia dignitatum, inscrip-
tions, papyri and Justinianic legislation reveals many examples of a numeral used in
an adverbial form in the title of a late Roman regiment. These include, to cite only
instances of tertio, the equites tertio Dalmatae, equites tertio sagittarii and, in trans-
literation, $riùmÌ« tân tertiodelmˇtvn. It therefore becomes clear that certainly in
Theodoret’s letter, and probably in Justin’s also, the word tertio is in fact adverbial and
conforms to this well-documented usage.27
Third, both texts apply the adjective fortissimus to the third equites stablesiani: the
Latin translation of Theodoret’s letter refers to fortissimorum tertio stabilisianorum,
while Justin’s letter of 520 requires that any soldier found to have committed perjury
should be expelled from fortissimo numero. Usage of fortissimus, ‹most courageous›, in
military contexts is sporadically attested from the mid third century, in both inscrip-
tions and imperial legislation, with greater frequency from the end of the fifth century.
While this pattern in part reflects the changing quantity and character of different cat-
egories of source-material in Latin over this period, the evidence nevertheless gives

27 Cf. ND Or. 5.36: equites quinto Dalmatae; 37: equites nono Dalmatae; 6.37: equites sexto
Dalmatae; 7.27: equites tertio Dalmatae; Oc. 6.13 = 56 = 7.174: equites octavo Dalmatae; 6.26–9 =
96–72 = 7.188–91: equites primo sagittarii; equites secundo sagittarii; equites tertio sagittarii;
equites quarto sagittarii. Cf. ILS 2805 = ILCV 522 = AE 1891.105: ex numero / octavo Dalmatas;
Just. Ed. 4.2: $riùmÌ« tân tertiodelmˇtvn; P.Cair.Masp. II 67126.65–6 (541): ãn tˆ $riùmˆ tân
gennaiot(ˇtvn) Sejtodalmˇtvn. See also Sejtodalmˇtoi in unpublished P.Vindob. G 30121
(VI), previewed in F. Mitthof, Annona Militaris. Die Heeresversorgung im spätantiken
Ägypten, 2001, II 561 (194A).
358 Philip Rance

the impression that fortissimus became an increasingly formulaic epithet for military
personnel in the late fifth and early sixth centuries. In the overwhelming majority of
cases fortissimus is a collective appellation accorded to ‹soldiers› (milites) as a group or
profession, or the ‹soldiery›.28 Much more rarely, and only after the beginning of the
sixth century, is fortissimus applied to military units (numeri), and then only in gen-
eral and not with regard to specific regiments.29 The wider linguistic significance
of this designation is clarified thanks to the bilingualism of Justinian’s Novellae, in
that the Latin translator of Novella 103 (dated 536) used fortissimus to translate
gennaifitato« in the context of a military unit.30 In the more voluminous Greek docu-
mentation of the late Roman army, especially in the papyrological record of the
fifth and sixth centuries, the honorific gennaifitatoi, ‹most courageous›, is frequently
prefixed to the official titles of regiments and also accorded to soldiers collectively.
The instances are far too numerous to examine in detail, but it suffices here to observe
the formal correspondence between fortissimorum tertio stabilisianorum in the
Latin version of Theodoret’s letter, translated in the 560s, and, for example, tân gen-
naiot(ˇtvn) Sejtodalmˇtvn in a papyrus contract of 541.31 The received texts of
Theodoret’s letter and Justin’s letter therefore provide further examples of the corre-
sponding usage of fortissimi, which functioned as an official, or at least widely recog-
nised, Latin counterpart to gennaifitatoi. Accordingly, Rusticus’ translation becomes

28 Collective appellation for milites: e.g. inscriptions: CIL VIII 22765 = ILS 8923 = AE 1895.17

= 1902.46 (Talalati/Ras el-Aïn Tlalet; 265): fortissimis militibus suis ex limite Tripolitano; AE
1994.1797 = 1996.1623 = 2001.1975–6 (Qasr el-Azraq; ca. 272 to early IV): per mil(ites) for-
tiss(imos) suos legg(ionum). Legislation: CJ 12.37.6 (377): fortissimi ac devotissimi milites; 39.3
(396): fortissimis militibus nostris per Illyricum; ibid. 4 (423): … fortissimis militibus; 50.22.pr.
(457–74): in transitu fortissimorum militum; 12.35.18.pr. (492): fortissimos milites; ibid. 2
(492): … quam fortissimis prospiciatur militibus; ibid. 8 (492): … fortissimi praesentales milites;
37.17.pr. (491–518): fortissimi milites ex quocumque numero; 8.53.36.1 (531): fortissimis praestant
militibus; Just. Nov. 103 (536). Individual soldiers: CIL VI 41332 = AE 1969/70.21 = AE 1975.15
(Rome; 357): fortissimo [mil]iti.
29 CJ 1.29.4 (491–518): nominaque fortissimorum numerorum, in quibus idem milites referun-

tur; Just. Nov. 102.3 (536): ex numero … fortissimo militari (see following note).
30 Just. Nov. 103.3 (Schöll 498.33–5): ãj … gennaiotˇtoy strativtikoÜ katalfigoy > ex

numero … fortissimo militari. The Latin translation is from Auth. 33; the complex debates about
its date, location and status are of no immediate concern.
31 P.Cair.Masp. II 67126.65–6 (541): ãn tˆ $riùmˆ tân gennaiot(ˇtvn) Sejtodalmˇtvn.

Further examples range in date between the beginning of the second and early seventh centuries,
but accumulate in the fifth and sixth. The use of gennaifitatoi as a collective designation for sol-
diers (stratiâtai) dates back to the Severan period; the earliest instance appears to be PSI VI
683.19 (Arsinoites 199). To my knowledge, the earliest specimen of gennaifitatoi prefixed to
regimental titulature is BGU I 316.10–11 (Ascalon 359). The evolution and detailed chronology
of this usage requires further study. See general remarks of F. Preisigke, Fachwörter des öffent-
lichen Verwaltungsdienstes Ägyptens in den griechischen Papyrusurkunden der ptolemäisch-
römischen Zeit, 1915, 42, s.v.; F. Preisigke, rev. and ed. E. Kiessling, Wörterbuch der grie-
chischen Papyrusurkunden III, 1931, 184–85; Hornickel (n. 22) s.v.
 The Third Equites Stablesiani at Cyrrhus 359

the only instance, so far indentified, of fortissimus affixed to regimental titulature or

applied to a specific named unit.32
Finally, the letters of Theodoret and Justin permit a closer location of the equites ter-
tii stablesiani in the fifth and sixth centuries. The Notitia dignitatum gives no indi-
cation of the deployment of the individual units of comitatenses under the command
of the magister militum per Orientem in 400/401. In his letter of 432/33, however,
Theodoret specifies that in autumn 432 he had sent a letter from Cyrrhus to Samosata
with the diaconus of the equites tertii stablesiani ‹when he was passing that way› (dum
illic adveniret). In 520 soldiers of the same regiment were again at Cyrrhus, where they
claimed to have witnessed a religious demonstration in memory of Theodoret, and
they were still there sometime later when the new bishop, Sergius, allegedly convened
another unorthodox gathering. The evidence stops short of certainty, but it seems rea-
sonable to infer that the equites tertii stablesiani were based in Theodoret’s see. Cyrrhus
was a substantial city about 60 miles (96 kms), or roughly three or four days’ travel,
northeast of Antioch. Formerly a legionary base for legio X Fretensis in the first half of
first century, Cyrrhus appears to have functioned as a major point of concentration
for troops engaged in offensive operations in Armenia and Upper Mesopotamia until
the early third century. Changing strategic circumstances diminished its military im-
portance in the later Roman period, when the more southerly highway via Beroea and
Hierapolis became the favoured route from Antioch to the frontier, but Cyrrhus re-
mained a significant transit station on the road from Antioch to the Euphrates cross-
ings at Zeugma and, further north, at Samosata. Certainly Justinian deemed Cyrrhus
of sufficient importance to invest heavily in its refortification and refurbishment (be-
fore ca. 551/52).33 It is generally believed that ‹mobile› units of comitatenses typically
lacked permanent stations and, when not on campaign, were temporarily billeted
in or encamped around towns and cities, although much remains obscure about the
realities and detailed operation of this peripatetic existence. The long-term stationing

32 The complexity of the evidence requires a note of caution: there is little reason to doubt

that in Rusticus’ translation of Theodoret’s letter fortissimorum renders gennaiotˇtvn in the

original; his gratuitous addition of the Latin designation seems most improbable. As previously
observed, however, the use of fortissimus in relation to numeri, rather than milites collectively,
is not directly documented before the early sixth century. Strictly speaking, Rusticius’ translation
can only bear witness to Latin regimental titulature in the 560s, although the papyrological evi-
dence for the use of gennaifitatoi as a regimental epithet from the mid fourth century leaves
little doubt that the absence of direct evidence for the same use of fortissimi at an earlier date is
simply a consequence of the dearth of comparable Latin documentation.
33 For the limited data concerning Cyrrhus see E. Honigmann, K÷rro«, RE 12.1, 1924,

199–204; E. Frézouls, Cyrrhus et la Cyrrhestique jusqu’ à la fin du Haut-Empire, in: ANRW

II.8, 1977, 164–197 esp. 182–89; F. Millar, The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.-A.D. 337, 1993, 104,
229–30; N. Pollard, Soldiers, Cities, and Civilians in Roman Syria, 2000, 261–62; Ur-
bainczyk 2002, 21–23. Justinian’s restoration: Proc. Aed. 2.11.2–7. See also generally A. Brei-
tenbach – S. Ristow, Kommagene (Euphratesia), Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum
XIX, 1999, 234–73.
 360 Philip Rance

of the equites tertii stablesiani at Cyrrhus would augment evidence that, at least in
Oriens, comitatenses were gradually dispersed in urban garrisons, often at strategic
points towards or even on the limes, a development that can be traced as early as the
second half of the fifth century, and perhaps earlier still, and which reflected a combi-
nation of defensive and logistical considerations.34 An alternative hypothesis, in my
view less likely, cannot be excluded: the distance between Antioch and Cyrrhus allows
for the possibility that the equites tertii stablesiani were based at or in the vicinity of
Antioch, the headquarters of the magister militum per Orientem, and selected regi-
mental personnel were required to travel to or through Cyrrhus in the course of their
duties.35 In any case, the recurrence of the equites tertii stablesiani, and no other regi-
ment, in the meagre historical record of Cyrrhus cannot plausibly be explained by
chance.

Thessaloniki
prr@fastnet.co.uk

34For examples dating back at least to the reign of Zeno (474–91), and possibly Theodosius II
(408–50), see Jones 1964, 655, 660–61, 685–86, and generally L. M. Whitby, Recruitment in
Roman Armies from Justinian to Heraclius (ca. 565–615), in: A. Cameron (ed.), The Byzantine
and Early Islamic Near East 3: States, Resources and Armies, 1995, 61–124 at 70–72; G. Rave-
gnani, Soldati di Bisanzio in età giustinianea, 1998, 94–95.
35 Clearly travel between Cyrrhus and Antioch was unproblematic. Theodoret indicates

that he was often in Antioch to preach (e.g. ep. 83, dated 448, ed. Azéma II 206, 208) or to con-
sult the archbishop (e.g. ep. 14, dated 432/33, in Azéma IV 198.23–4). Furthermore, Justin’s
letter to Hypatius notes that Sergius, Bishop of Cyrrhus, was «said to be residing there [i.e. Anti-
och] in the company of the most reverend Paul [Patriarch of Antioch 518–21]» (cum ibi degere
Sergius diceretur et cum Paulo reverentissimo esse) when the soldiers first testified to the irregu-
larities at Cyrrhus. Indeed, Justin’s subsequent directive that Hypatius «summon without delay
the bishop of Cyrrhus residing there, as we have heard» (convocare quidem sine dilatione Cyres-
tenae civitatis episcopum ibi degentem, sicut audivimus) leaves in doubt whether Sergius is still in
Antioch or has by now returned to Cyrrhus. It also remains unclear why the soldiers in 520 gave
evidence before the defensor civitatis of Antioch concerning events they had allegedly witnessed
at Cyrrhus, especially when the two cities were in different provinces, respectively Syria I and Eu-
phratensis. See Millar 2009, 126, 135. One possibility, offered here only as conjecture, is that
the soldiers, whose number is never specified, had accompanied Sergius from Cyrrhus to Anti-
och as his escort.

View publication stats