The Empire is dead, long live the army

[Duncan Head]

We can point to the title of 'rex' given to Syagrius by contemporaries as a clear indication that he was firmly in charge, and not just chasing a transient purple dream like the ephemeral 'emperors' in southern Gaul.

Surely one of the reasons that E James and others challenged the whole "Kingdom of Soissons" idea is that we don't actually have any contemporary references to Syagrius as "rex"? It's only later chroniclers who call him by that title. In fact, we simply don't know what contemporaries called him.

[Patrick Waterson]

As to your question about central authority, I think we do have enough evidence of at least a nominal Roman kingship (was rex an Imperial rank?  If not are contemporaries seeing Syagrius like all those other barbarian "kings" scattered around).  The debate seems to be around the nature of this central authority.  Was it quite like the barbarian kingdoms about or like a fully functional Roman bureaucracy, with taxes, fabricae and elite drilled regular soldiery in large numbers?  Did its authority rest on official sanction or on other Roman successor elements like Church and the traditional aristocracy, now with armed followings?

This is an excellent shortlist of the essential points of the discussion.  The designation 'rex' for Syagrius is probably best understood as being similar to the designation' rex' adopted by Odoacer when he deposed Romulus Augustus and took over supreme power in Italy.  He seems to have taken over the still-existing Imperial administration as a going concern, although to get to power he had destroyed the last regular Roman units in Italy, a consideration inapplicable to Aegidius and Syagrius.

A dearth of definite information makes it hard if not impossible to provide definite answers to these questions, but so far the indicators we have from southern Gaul point to a continuity of both imperial-style administration and regular troops in Roman service and I would be very surprised not to find the same operating in northern Gaul, which had to all appearances unitary rule and continuous firm authority under Aegidius and Syagrius.  I would see the Aegidian family's rule of the Domain of Soissons as being similar to the Nepos family's rule of Illyria, one of the few modest success stories of the closing decades of the Late Empire period.

We can point to the title of 'rex' given to Syagrius by contemporaries as a clear indication that he was firmly in charge, and not just chasing a transient purple dream like the ephemeral 'emperors' in southern Gaul.

Surely one of the reasons that E James and others challenged the whole "Kingdom of Soissons" idea is that we don't actually have any contemporary references to Syagrius as "rex"? It's only later chroniclers who call him by that title. In fact, we simply don't know what contemporaries called him.

Then again, it was clear that Syagrius was in charge, as opposed to, say, a council of assorted landowners running the show.  We have the cities of Britain writing to Aetius or Aegidius, not to the concatenated landowners of Gaul.

[aligern]

 Surely  Odovakar is rex  of the Scirian and Herulian soldiery in Italy and Patricius  of the italians.

If Syagrius is  a rex then that might refer to him being accepted as king by some Franks.
Where are these regular roman units in southern Gaul Patrick??

roy

[Duncan Head]

Surely one of the reasons that E James and others challenged the whole "Kingdom of Soissons" idea is that we don't actually have any contemporary references to Syagrius as "rex"? It's only later chroniclers who call him by that title. In fact, we simply don't know what contemporaries called him.

Then again, it was clear that Syagrius was in charge, as opposed to, say, a council of assorted landowners running the show.  We have the cities of Britain writing to Aetius or Aegidius, not to the concatenated landowners of Gaul.

It suggests he was the figurehead, but not necessarily any more than that. "Rex" is at least as compatible - perhaps more so? - with "primus inter pares with the largest comitatus" as it is with "small-scale Emperor with a standing army".

(And of course, if the cities of Britain were writing to Aetius, it tells us nothing about Aegidius or Syagrius.)

[Andreas Johansson]

Underlying the assumption of economic collapse and non-maintenance of a regular force is the flawed idea that the abandonment of villas signifies a loss of agricultural production.  To me it suggests precisely the opposite: a landowner decides after a number of barbarian raids in the 4th century to blow this for a game of farmers and so moves to the town.  He now has an abandoned villa with several hectares of no-longer-idyllic parkland, so what does he do with it?  The obvious answer is to turn it into productive land and actually increase his revenues.  Sooner or later the nice understanding gentlemen who collect money for the government will become aware of this and tax receipts will, if anything, increase along with overall production.

If raids were frequent enough to cause en masse abandonment of villae, one'd think they'd by themselves have a significant negative impact on production.

On another point, if Frankish aristocrats didn't have to share anything with Romans who succeeded in turning themselves into Franks, what, then, was the point in turning Frankish? The status must've been privileged for Romans to've had a systematic incentive to try to attain it - and privileged groups generally don't share their privileges too happily. They may recognize allowing outsiders in is sometimes necessary for various reasons, but are hardly likely to open-armedly receive everyone who wants to join in the fun.

[Patrick Waterson]

But did any Romans turn Frankish prior to AD 486?

"Rex" is at least as compatible - perhaps more so? - with "primus inter pares with the largest comitatus" as it is with "small-scale Emperor with a standing army".

Please explain. 

(And of course, if the cities of Britain were writing to Aetius, it tells us nothing about Aegidius or Syagrius.)

But if they were writing to Aegidius, it does.  And do we have any reason to assume that one Magister Militum ruling northern Gaul was any less in charge than another?

One thought on this topic: a primus inter pares relationship is not known for generational continuity.  Aegidius seems to have unilaterally passed his realm to his son, which suggests he had clear power to do so.

Surely  Odovakar is rex  of the Scirian and Herulian soldiery in Italy and Patricius  of the italians.

My understanding is that he took the title Rex (or was awarded it by his troops) following the deposition of Romulus Augustus, which followed the defeat of Orestes and his Roman troops (the last in Italy) at Placentia in AD 476.  The Roman senate then sent the insignia of Imperial rule to Zeno (the Eastern Emperor), who accepted them, theoretically reuniting the two empires, and then in order to exercise the semblance of imperial authority awarded Odoacer the title of Patricius (patrician).  This legal fiction was transferred to Theodoric the Ostrogoth when Zeno induced him to invade Italy to replace Odoacer in AD 486, and continued up to the days of Justinian, constituting the theoretical legal basis for the reconquest of Italy.

It is actually interesting to tie in the events of Zeno's reign with the happenings in the west.  In 475 Zeno is temporarily deposed and flees to Isauria with the Roman treasury: his nominee Julius Nepos has his throne usurped by Orestes.  In 476 Zeno is back, though by now Odoacer has overthrown Orestes.  Zeno patricianises Odoacer to make the best of a bad job (reinstating Nepos being a non-option after Zeno became the notional sole emperor).

Ten years later, the Ostrogoths threaten the Eastern Empire (now theoretically the reunited empire) and by a narrow margin Zeno succeeds in diverting them to take Italy instead - meanwhile, Clovis makes his move against Syagrius.

The first (events of AD 475-6) is definitely cause and effect, but in AD 486 does the Ostrogothic threat to the remainder of the Empire embolden Clovis to proceed with his schemes?

All of which is beside the point but perhaps interesting.

Where are these regular roman units in southern Gaul Patrick??

At the sharp end of the pay scale mentioned in Sidonius' Letter V.7 (to Thaumastus) where he comments on corrupt and malignant officials who "grudge ... the soldier his pay".

[rodge]

If Syagrius is  a rex then that might refer to him being accepted as king by some Franks.

Well, they did the same to his father:

'The Franks, after he was driven out, with one accord selected as king Egidius'
Gregory II, 12.

[aligern]

patrick, I am happy to see Sidonius 'soldier his pay' but if we take it as evidence then how about it refers to limitanei garrisoned in Provence. Alternatively, if course it could refer to Visigothic soldiers recieving their hospitalitas in the form of One third of the value of production on lands allocated to pay for them, or it could refer to a town garrison paid for by local taxation.

As I did say earlier, I just do not accept that there is a linkage between the collection of taxes and a regular Roman army of comital status.
I'd like to bet that the Burgundian polity ( the most Romanised of the successor kingdoms) had units of both Burgundians and former Romans paid for by taxes as well as the buccellarii  of leading Burgundians and Gallo Romans, but I very much doubt that they are regular Roman mobile units even though Gundobad was a legitimate magister militum after Ricimer.
Roy

[Justin Swanton]

Surely one of the reasons that E James and others challenged the whole "Kingdom of Soissons" idea is that we don't actually have any contemporary references to Syagrius as "rex"? It's only later chroniclers who call him by that title. In fact, we simply don't know what contemporaries called him.

Then again, it was clear that Syagrius was in charge, as opposed to, say, a council of assorted landowners running the show.  We have the cities of Britain writing to Aetius or Aegidius, not to the concatenated landowners of Gaul.

It suggests he was the figurehead, but not necessarily any more than that. "Rex" is at least as compatible - perhaps more so? - with "primus inter pares with the largest comitatus" as it is with "small-scale Emperor with a standing army".

(And of course, if the cities of Britain were writing to Aetius, it tells us nothing about Aegidius or Syagrius.)

They wrote to 'Agitus', which could be either Aetius or Aegidius, no conclusive proof either way. The name is closer to Aegidius, though.

Interesting discussion which I will be able to rejoin properly hopefully by the end of the month.

[Justin Swanton]

On the subject of the abandonment of villas in northern Gaul, Wickham makes the point that the Gallo-roman aristocracy of that region gave up the villa existence, not because their estates were being regularly devastated by barbarian raids, but because their role had become far more military than was the case with their southern colleagues. The landowning class in the south lounged around in magnificent villa buildings, strolled through magnificent gardens, wrote refined Latin to each other and did anything else they could think of to keep boredom at bay - because they had nothing else to do. The traditional civil and military posts of the empire were gone. In the north it was a very different kettle of fish. The senatorial class were a good deal more busy with the defence of the realm, spending their money and time maintaining a state army and private troops, and the constant threat of barbarian invasion (as opposed to barbarian raids) made the idle villa lifestyle distinctly passe.

All to say that the lack of villa buildings is no proof of the abandonment of villa estates.

[Erpingham]

On another point, if Frankish aristocrats didn't have to share anything with Romans who succeeded in turning themselves into Franks, what, then, was the point in turning Frankish? The status must've been privileged for Romans to've had a systematic incentive to try to attain it - and privileged groups generally don't share their privileges too happily. They may recognize allowing outsiders in is sometimes necessary for various reasons, but are hardly likely to open-armedly receive everyone who wants to join in the fun.

I think we need to put aside the fact that Clovis and his team are the eventual winners and see them to begin with a faction with an ambitious and shrewd leader.  The Frankish aristocracy aren't being so much asked to share their cake but grow the cake by conquest or, if its an easier option, by co-opting wealthy and powerful people, their resources and networks into the Frankish project.

Anyway, as we are agreed that there is some sort of native "kingdom" or authority - the Domain of Soissons - these Gallo-Roman movers and shakers could just as well be aligned to that when it exists.  If, however, we go with the idea that this is a time of fluid allegiance and identity, Syagrius or any other leaders authority grows or shrinks according to his success, not his titles and possession of a fully functional state bureaucracy.  But, as always the caveat, in the situation we are dealing with, we are looking for models that fit the scraps of evidence we have and exploring their fit.

[Andreas Johansson]

On another point, if Frankish aristocrats didn't have to share anything with Romans who succeeded in turning themselves into Franks, what, then, was the point in turning Frankish? The status must've been privileged for Romans to've had a systematic incentive to try to attain it - and privileged groups generally don't share their privileges too happily. They may recognize allowing outsiders in is sometimes necessary for various reasons, but are hardly likely to open-armedly receive everyone who wants to join in the fun.

I think we need to put aside the fact that Clovis and his team are the eventual winners and see them to begin with a faction with an ambitious and shrewd leader.  The Frankish aristocracy aren't being so much asked to share their cake but grow the cake by conquest or, if its an easier option, by co-opting wealthy and powerful people, their resources and networks into the Frankish project.

There's a difference between throwing one's lot with the Franks (or Goths or ...) and turning oneself into a Frank (or Goth or ...).  Sidonius' report of Romans turning themselves to Visigoths implies a lag of a couple generations between the two.

[Erpingham]

There's a difference between throwing one's lot with the Franks (or Goths or ...) and turning oneself into a Frank (or Goth or ...).  Sidonius' report of Romans turning themselves to Visigoths implies a lag of a couple generations between the two.

Is there, or are they both part of a process?  IIRC, the Franks themselves are hardly an old culture, having evolved from a confederation of older tribes.  We could suggest "Frankishness" is a work in progress and it will take a lurch towards "Roman-ness" when they officially become catholics.  So, we might have a period of separate but aligned Romans (this seems to happen elsewhere like among the Visigoths) but cultural convergence between the initially separate aristocracies to form one whole, with relatively minor differences showing up only when genealogies are recited.

[Duncan Head]

"Rex" is at least as compatible - perhaps more so? - with "primus inter pares with the largest comitatus" as it is with "small-scale Emperor with a standing army".

Please explain. 

Because it's a "barbarian" title - no Roman has been a rex since Tarquinius Superbus - because it's thought of as a lesser rank than Augustus or Caesar, and because it doesn't necessarily imply very much power. The Alemanni had seven reges at Argentorate (and ten regales), so you don't need all that much power to be a rex, and you certaly don't need absolute or unshared authority.

[Patrick Waterson]

Thanks, Duncan.

As Rodger has pointed out, Gregory of Tours tells us that Aegidius was elected King of the Franks when they became disenchanted with Childeric (he of the 300 gold coins in his tomb).  Aegidius' tenure as ruler of northern Gaul seems to have lasted fifteen years (to AD 464 or 465) and Childeric seems to have returned to his Frankish throne c.462 as he fought jointly with Aegidius against the Visigoths in 463 and additionally campaigned against the Saxons in 464, but Gregory does not mention Aegidius being deposed.  Childeric following his return conducts himself like an ally or even a vassal rather than as a rival.

If Aegidius had retained his status as a nominal overking of the Franks and passed this on to Syagrius, it would explain him being considered a 'rex' by future generations.  This of course would mean the status does not specifically reflect his standing within his own domain, but it would be hard for him to gain the respect of the Franks if he were not master of his own house.

patrick, I am happy to see Sidonius 'soldier his pay' but if we take it as evidence then how about it refers to limitanei garrisoned in Provence. Alternatively, if course it could refer to Visigothic soldiers recieving their hospitalitas in the form of One third of the value of production on lands allocated to pay for them, or it could refer to a town garrison paid for by local taxation.

I do not think town garrisons and local taxation would merit the crowd of corrupt parasites listed by Sidonius, nor would they unite province-wide to grudge ambassadors their gifts, tax farmers their dues, provincials their farms, or deny towns their truces and municipalities their flamen's dignity; these would be the preserve of a higher level of authority.   Sidonius' 'pay' is stipendia, which is a standard Roman soldier remuneratory noun which probably excludes Visigoths on hospitalias, and his 'soldiers' are paludati, literally 'wearers of military cloaks', which may encompass both limitanei and comitatenses but does not look as if it includes barbarians (however see letter IV.20 in which the Frankish prince Sigismer wears a "flame-red mantle with much glint of ruddy gold", although this and the green mantles of his guard do not seem much like Roman military cloaks).

As I did say earlier, I just do not accept that there is a linkage between the collection of taxes and a regular Roman army of comital status.

As I understand matters, the army was usually the first and foremost item of expenditure, everything else being next in the queue.  Furthermore, once one stops having an army tax collection becomes problematic even though the army itself does not do the collecting: tax gatherers tend to have a short life expectancy if everyone knows that retribution for removing them will not be implementable.  (Part of the reason for the Bacaudae problem was that the army had its hands full elsewhere in AD 409-417.)

I'd like to bet that the Burgundian polity (the most Romanised of the successor kingdoms) had units of both Burgundians and former Romans paid for by taxes as well as the buccellarii  of leading Burgundians and Gallo Romans, but I very much doubt that they are regular Roman mobile units even though Gundobad was a legitimate magister militum after Ricimer.

I see nothing to fault there, although drawing a parallel between this and the Domain of Soissons would require Aegidius and Syagrius to be barbarians ruling over a realm of fellow barbarians with the notional permission of the Roman emperor, whereas both seem to have been descended from an illustrious Roman (Gallo-Roman) family and ruling without imperial permission a domain that had not been overrun by barbarians. 

Interestingly enough, Sidonius in Letter V.5, written to one Syagrius, praises his mastery of the German language and skill in interpreting Burgundian law, not to mention fluent oratory that gains the respect of "old Germans bowed with age".  It looks as if part of Syagrius' ascendancy over surrounding barbarian tribes was through respect - which helped to reduce the need for force.

We could suggest "Frankishness" is a work in progress and it will take a lurch towards "Roman-ness" when they officially become catholics.  So, we might have a period of separate but aligned Romans (this seems to happen elsewhere like among the Visigoths) but cultural convergence between the initially separate aristocracies to form one whole, with relatively minor differences showing up only when genealogies are recited.

All of which, while interesting, seems to belong to a period after the Domain of Soissons rather than during it.  Syagrius (if indeed it is he in Sidonius' Letter V.5) seems rather to have been using his "Roman-ness" to influence his neighbours in combination with a deep understanding of their culture and customs; I would however hesitate to suggest that he was developing "Burgundish-ness", for all that Sidonius seems to think he spent insufficient time studying literature.

One advantage of discussing this topic is that some of us are learning a lot about the late 5th century AD in western Europe ...