SoA Forums

Having a particular interest in very late Roman Antiquity, I have paid close attention to this passage from Procopius's Histories XII:

Now other Roman soldiers, also, had been stationed at the frontiers of Gaul to serve as guards. And these soldiers, having no means of returning to Rome, and at the same time being unwilling to yield to their enemy who were Arians, gave themselves, together with their military standards and the land which they had long been guarding for the Romans, to the Arborychi and Germans; and they handed down to their offspring all the customs of their fathers, which were thus preserved, and this people has held them in sufficient reverence to guard them even up to my time.

I draw several conclusions from this passage:

1. These were troops who were stationed in the former Roman provinces of Syagrius. The context of the passage makes this clear.

2. They were fiercely proud of their 'Romanity', to the point of substantially keeping their 5th century equipment, uniforms and mode of fighting. This was a very conservative epoch, and the Roman troops, maintained by a rich and militarised Gallo-roman nobility, had no reason to start looking and acting like barbarians. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that this region of Gaul preserved intact the structures of Gallo-roman society, evidenced by the wills of rich landowners in the following centuries.

3. They were good-quality troops. They were 'held in sufficient reverence' by 'this people', the fused Gallo-roman and Frankish populations of the area. 'Arborychi' = Armoricans, or Gallo-roman inhabitants of the domain of Syagrius. 'Germans' = Franks. The 'Arians' are the Visigoths to the south.

Does anyone have any relevant data that either confirms or refutes these conclusions?

 I dwelt on this for a while Justin and would like to start with a question.  What is Procopius telling us here?  What was he likely to have known of these soldiers and why is he telling us about them? Is he using a written source ?
Procopius is not particularly well informed about Gaul or Spain, indeed the Byzantines (Romans) are not that well informed about Vandal Africa because Belisarius arrives in Sicily and then starts asking.

What is the evidence that Roman soldiers were maintained by the Gallic aristocracy??  Is there any corroboration? (BTW I'd agree  that there is some) . There is certainly some non corroborative evidence from the Life of Saint Severinus.
Have you read Bachrach's various works around this subject?

We need you to tell us a bit more.

Roy

Quote from: aligern on December 11, 2012, 10:11:29 AM
I dwelt on this for a while Justin and would like to start with a question.  What is Procopius telling us here?  What was he likely to have known of these soldiers and why is he telling us about them? Is he using a written source ?
Procopius is not particularly well informed about Gaul or Spain, indeed the Byzantines (Romans) are not that well informed about Vandal Africa because Belisarius arrives in Sicily and then starts asking.

What is the evidence that Roman soldiers were maintained by the Gallic aristocracy??  Is there any corroboration? (BTW I'd agree  that there is some) . There is certainly some non corroborative evidence from the Life of Saint Severinus.
Have you read Bachrach's various works around this subject?

We need you to tell us a bit more.

Roy

The passage about the Roman units that kept their identity up to Procopius' own time comes at the end of a description of the war between the realm of Syagrius and the Franks, which finally ended in peace when Clovis was baptized in 496/7. Procopius, who accompanied Belisarius into Italy, may have seen these troops as part of the Frankish invasion force into Italy (I need to confirm the dates of that). Certainly he would have heard about them since they were the last traces of the old Western Empire's military machine, and were seen as remarkable in their own time.

Piecing together Gregory of Tour's Historia, Procopius, the Liber Historiae Francorum of the 8th century, and the Golden Thread of St Genovefa, it is possible to reconstruct a picture of the events. I have written an article on the subject which at present is in Mark's hands. Briefly, Syagrius and Clovis went to war in 486 when Syagrius revoked Clovis's federate control of Belgica II. Syagrius was rapidly beaten and deposed, but the war dragged on for another ten years, during which time Paris was under siege, on and off. The Gallo-roman troops of Syagrius's provinces stopped Clovis dead in his tracks, the only one of his enemies who succeeded in doing so. After his conversion and peace the Franks and Gallo-romans gradually fused into a single people.

Procopius is careful with his Gallic nomenclature - he uses generic terms if he is not quite sure about specific locations. One senses he has a grasp of the overall picture but not of the details. Syagrius and Clovis go to war because the 'Arborychi" (=Armoricans, dwellers of Syagrius's realm) 'changed their government'. No explanation is given for this and probably Procopius did not have one - he did not understand the detail of the politics in that corner of the world at that time. This being the case, I feel one can trust him when he does commit himself to something.

Chris Wickham's excellent Framing the Early Middle Ages establishes that the Gallo-roman aristocracy of nothern Gaul became militarised early in the 5th century, partly because that area remained under direct imperial control and partly because it was near the traditional barbarian hotspots. Large-scale landowning remained intact but country villas went to the wall since the aristocrats there had no use for them, unlike their colleagues in the south who had the money, time (and lack of anything else to do) to spend in cultured otium.

This is not really my period, and I venture into it with some trepidation.  Justin wrote:

QuoteThese were troops who were stationed in the former Roman provinces of Syagrius. The context of the passage makes this clear.

I'm not completely sure it does. Procopius says these were "other" Roman soldiers - "other", that is, than the Arborychi/Armoricans, who are the subject of the previous paragraph. Indeed, he says that these "other" soldiers "gave themselves, together with their military standards and the land which they had long been guarding for the Romans, to the Arborychi and Germans". Now, Justin suggests that " 'Arborychi' = Armoricans, or Gallo-roman inhabitants of the domain of Syagrius". So where was "the land which they [the "other" Romans] had long been guarding"? If they gave it to the Armoricans, surely it cannot have been the land which was the Armoricans' already? Doesn't Procopius' wording suggest that they had been garrisoning some other part of Gaul entirely?

Justin says:

QuoteProcopius, who accompanied Belisarius into Italy, may have seen these troops as part of the Frankish invasion force into Italy

But there seems to be no indication of any Roman presence in Procopius' description of the Frankish armies in Italy; which casts doubt on this suggestion, and may be why Edward James in The Franks castigates Procopius as an unreliable witness in the context of this passage.

I'm sure Justin's read it, but for others who may be interested, Bernard Bachrach's article "Procopius and the Chronology of Clovis' Reign" is online at http://tinyurl.com/b2b5yt2 (http://tinyurl.com/b2b5yt2). He defends Procopius against the interpretations of Ferdinand Lot, and particularly on pp.24-25 defends the idea that Roman units may still have existed in Gaul at the time. Also interesting is Howard Wiseman's "A British Legion stationed near Orléans c. 530?" at http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/wiseman/DECB/Wiseman-Dalmas-JAEMA.pdf (http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/wiseman/DECB/Wiseman-Dalmas-JAEMA.pdf). He sees these "other Roman soldiers" as Syagrius' men but sees the Arborychi as "Armorican Britons", which is probably wrong.

Perhaps we should identify these "other Roman soldiers" with the Ripariolibriones (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=217.75 (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=217.75)) of the Catalaunian thread?

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 11, 2012, 04:36:56 PM
This is not really my period, and I venture into it with some trepidation.  Justin wrote:

QuoteThese were troops who were stationed in the former Roman provinces of Syagrius. The context of the passage makes this clear.

I'm not completely sure it does. Procopius says these were "other" Roman soldiers - "other", that is, than the Arborychi/Armoricans, who are the subject of the previous paragraph. Indeed, he says that these "other" soldiers "gave themselves, together with their military standards and the land which they had long been guarding for the Romans, to the Arborychi and Germans". Now, Justin suggests that " 'Arborychi' = Armoricans, or Gallo-roman inhabitants of the domain of Syagrius". So where was "the land which they [the "other" Romans] had long been guarding"? If they gave it to the Armoricans, surely it cannot have been the land which was the Armoricans' already? Doesn't Procopius' wording suggest that they had been garrisoning some other part of Gaul entirely?

The political context makes that very unlikely. By 496, the only candidate for lands being guarded for the Romans were the four provinces formerly under the control of Syagrius: Lugdunensis II, Lugdunensis III, Lugdunensis IV Senonia, and Belgica II (though by this time Belgica II was under Frankish control). Everywhere else in the former Western Empire was under direct barbarian control.

Starting from the fact of a militarised aristocracy in northern Gaul, with each aristocrat in control of a personal band of bucellari (many of them former units of the imperial army), one has a quasi independent Roman territory that founds its ruling authority on its legitimacy, i.e. on the fact that it represents Roman power in the area. It is this legitimacy that enabled Syagrius to make Clovis a federate ally by granting him the administration of Belgica II as indicated in a letter to Clovis by Remigius.

Once Syagrius was deposed the local aristocracy retained its legitimacy and its authority, but without any central personage stepping forward to take the place of the former governor. The ten-year war between Clovis and the Gallo-romans would have been a very complex and localised affair, with some aristocrats taking an active part and others not, depending on how they were affected. A bit like the Marcher wars in Wales. Once peace was made between the Franks and the principal leaders of the Gallo-roman resistance it remained for the other Gallo-roman VIPs to accept the new status quo, and join the new order with their troops, the 'other soldiers' guarding their lands for the Romans.

'Arborychi' is a vague term comprising a complex reality. It may even include the Breton sub-kingdoms in the Armorican peninsula who seem to have been part of the final peace treaty in that they were granted and accepted a semi-autonomous status.

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 11, 2012, 04:36:56 PMJustin says:

QuoteProcopius, who accompanied Belisarius into Italy, may have seen these troops as part of the Frankish invasion force into Italy

But there seems to be no indication of any Roman presence in Procopius' description of the Frankish armies in Italy; which casts doubt on this suggestion, and may be why Edward James in The Franks castigates Procopius as an unreliable witness in the context of this passage.

I'm not sure that Procopius did see any Roman units with the Frankish armies. They need not have formed part of the invasion forces. The Frankish kings may not have trusted them or felt they needed them for a foreign campaign. The point though is that he is emphatic about their existence. People in his time were talking about them, a quasi-miraculous survival from the past.

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 11, 2012, 04:36:56 PMI'm sure Justin's read it, but for others who may be interested, Bernard Bachrach's article "Procopius and the Chronology of Clovis' Reign" is online at http://tinyurl.com/b2b5yt2 (http://tinyurl.com/b2b5yt2). He defends Procopius against the interpretations of Ferdinand Lot, and particularly on pp.24-25 defends the idea that Roman units may still have existed in Gaul at the time. Also interesting is Howard Wiseman's "A British Legion stationed near Orléans c. 530?" at http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/wiseman/DECB/Wiseman-Dalmas-JAEMA.pdf (http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/wiseman/DECB/Wiseman-Dalmas-JAEMA.pdf). He sees these "other Roman soldiers" as Syagrius' men but sees the Arborychi as "Armorican Britons", which is probably wrong.

I hadn't read Bachrach's article in fact, but thank you for directing me to it.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 11, 2012, 06:00:20 PMI'm not sure that Procopius did see any Roman units with the Frankish armies. They need not have formed part of the invasion forces. The Frankish kings may not have trusted them or felt they needed them for a foreign campaign. The point though is that he is emphatic about their existence. People in his time were talking about them, a quasi-miraculous survival from the past.

But if Procopius didn't see them first-hand, but only heard of them somehow, his testimony immediately becomes less trustworthy - his famous unreliability about the West comes into play. Yes, such Gallo-Roman troops no doubt existed, but if Procopius only knew of them at second- or third-hand, his account of the events of the previous century may not be reliable in detail. Hence,

QuoteIt is obviously tempting to equate the Roman soldiers of the second paragraph with remnants of the Gallic army, or the forces of Aegidius and Syagrius, but the most that one can safely say is that reports of them may have contributed to the hearsay that reached Procopius.

- MacGeorge, Late Roman Warlords, p.122.

So can we be sure of the details that suggest that "the other Roman soldiers" were Syagrius' troops? Probably not. There were some ex-Roman troops in northern Gaul in the last decades of the fifth century, probably: surely that's as far as we can really go?

 I am speaking from memory here, but the tenor of what Gregory of Tours says about the Gallo Roman troops that set out to help the Visigoth AlaricII in 507 is that there were  troops that may have claimed a Roman identity in the Auvergne. My recollection of the campaigns that followed Vouille is that these troops might well have survived despite casualties at Vouille.
There is also a letter of Cassiodorus that refers to Limitanei in the reign of Theoderic the Great.  I think the Limitanei and the 'Old Germans ' who may have had a federate relationship with the Empire, then Odoacer, then Theoderic  are referred to. These Limitanei are not in Gaul, but to the East, but that doesn't preclude there being surviving Limitanei to the west.

I looked at Procopius' possibly being an eyewitness to the Franks first invasion of Italy when thinking about the reliability of his statements on the use of Franciscae. I doubt that he saw them, but he could certainly have conversed with commanders who did and thus he could have obtained information about the composition of the Frankish or more properly Burgundian force.  If these Romans were with the Burgundo-Frank troops why did he not say?  If they were 'Romans' then why did Belisarius not offer them a transfer to his command?

Have you looked at the campaigns of Mummolus in the 560s-70s.  He is a  commander in the area of Burgundy and resists  Lombard invasions (its in Gregory of Tours) . I just wonder whether Roman troops that Procopius would have heard of were  in the Provincia of Gaul. That area of SE France is the area that a Roman would have called Gaul. The troops would have been positioned against the Visigoths by Odoacer, taken over by Theoderic after 507 and then into the Burgundian 'kingdom' after 536.   That doesn't explain 'Arborychi', but it gives a rationale as to why they might have been in contact with Romans in Italy in 536?? As garrison troops they might fight in defence, but not partake in an invasion of Italy.
I really thought that Syagrius territory and warband were annexed by Clovis who used the accession of strength to then enlarge his kingdom by overaweing the other Franks.

Roy

Quote from: Duncan Head on December 11, 2012, 10:40:34 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on December 11, 2012, 06:00:20 PMI'm not sure that Procopius did see any Roman units with the Frankish armies. They need not have formed part of the invasion forces. The Frankish kings may not have trusted them or felt they needed them for a foreign campaign. The point though is that he is emphatic about their existence. People in his time were talking about them, a quasi-miraculous survival from the past.

But if Procopius didn't see them first-hand, but only heard of them somehow, his testimony immediately becomes less trustworthy - his famous unreliability about the West comes into play. Yes, such Gallo-Roman troops no doubt existed, but if Procopius only knew of them at second- or third-hand, his account of the events of the previous century may not be reliable in detail.

My reading of Procopius gives me the impression of a careful historian who does not affirm what he is not sure of, and uses general terms if he does not have specific information. Having done a little checking up, it seems it was Theudebert I who invaded Italy. Theudebert was king of Austrasia, or northeastern Gaul. The former lands of Syagrius were in Neustria to the west. The 'other soldiers' would have been situated in that area, and hence not under Theudebert's control.

Procopius could have had a reliable knowledge of the ex-Syagrian Roman units without having seen them personally. Several converging eyewitness accounts and a general contemporary awareness of them. I notice that things that are not established as fact he affirms as not being established, but he is very emphatic about the existence of these troops, almost as if he knew the lector would have difficulty believing it.

Rereading Procopius's account, I get the impression he did see these 'other soldiers' himself.

Here is a hypothetical scenario: Childebert I, uncle of Theudebert, ruled the area containing Syagrius's former realm. Belisarius's reconquest of North Africa and Italy got everybody's attention. After Italy the next logical target for the Byzantine general would have been Gaul. At the time of Theudebert's intervention Childebert may have decided to send an embassy to Belisarius which included a contingent of Roman soldiers - to demonstrate that the Gallo-romans got along fine with the Franks, thank you very much, and didn't need to be liberated.

This is of course only a hypothesis, but it make the point that Procopius could have seen the Roman soldiers without having written them into his military account.

Is there any record of Belisarius meeting a Frankish embassy?  If he did it was more likely composed of churchmen (Gallo Roman nobles) and a count or two with their doruphoroi.  If P had seen Roman soldiers he would say so when he made the remark about them because that's the sort of chap he was, ever keen to make an Herodotean aside on culture or ethnicity.
Procopius is a greatretailer of stories such as the visit of the emperor Majorian to Carthage in disguise and also a great pumper up of his own contribution, sich as his learned advice on trumpets at Auximum  or his finding of a merchant  to act as a local guide to Africa whilst the African expedition was in Sicily.

The next logical phase of reconquest after Africa was surely Spain which is where Justinian actually went with the same strategy he had in Africa and then Italy i.e, exploiting dissension in the barbarian ruling group. Clovis  inheritance structure had provided a nice divide in Gaul so it would have been easy to  pick a fight. However, he didn't do this and I suggest that is because Gaul is not economically or  emotionally important to the Romans.  Africa had the wealth and Rome the prestige and above all the barbarians there and in Spain were small in number and  not well aligned to the Roman population. Gaul, however, had very nasty barbarians in great numbers because Germany was next door, gaul mattered less economically and is quite hard to conquer from Italy. In fact I don't think that an army has ever advanced from Italy to conquer France. (Caesar started in Gaul) .

So I very much doubt that Procopius met Roman descended soldiers in Italy.  It would make an interesting novel though!
Roy

Quote from: aligern on December 14, 2012, 12:47:53 PM
Is there any record of Belisarius meeting a Frankish embassy?  If he did it was more likely composed of churchmen (Gallo Roman nobles) and a count or two with their doruphoroi.  If P had seen Roman soldiers he would say so when he made the remark about them because that's the sort of chap he was, ever keen to make an Herodotean aside on culture or ethnicity.

Or possibly a private visit by a Gallo-roman nobleman and his armed escort. Not important enough to make the military record but the occasion for Procopius to see these 'Roman' soldiers close up.

It's just that the comment about the shoes makes me think Procopius had a soldier before him, whom he looked up and down. "Gosh, that looks familiar, and that!"

At the very least there is no reason for Procopius not to have met reliable eyewitnesses who could have described the situation in northern Gaul to him. Somebody talked to him, as his description of the war between Clovis and the domain of Syagrius is quite accurate in its general details.

Quote from: aligern on December 14, 2012, 12:47:53 PMProcopius is a greatretailer of stories such as the visit of the emperor Majorian to Carthage in disguise and also a great pumper up of his own contribution, sich as his learned advice on trumpets at Auximum  or his finding of a merchant  to act as a local guide to Africa whilst the African expedition was in Sicily.

Yes, but that doesn't mean his stories were fabrications. My impression of him is that he is not gullible or creative, but takes care that what he affirms is to the best of his knowledge the truth.

Quote from: aligern on December 14, 2012, 12:47:53 PMThe next logical phase of reconquest after Africa was surely Spain which is where Justinian actually went with the same strategy he had in Africa and then Italy i.e, exploiting dissension in the barbarian ruling group. Clovis  inheritance structure had provided a nice divide in Gaul so it would have been easy to  pick a fight. However, he didn't do this and I suggest that is because Gaul is not economically or  emotionally important to the Romans.  Africa had the wealth and Rome the prestige and above all the barbarians there and in Spain were small in number and  not well aligned to the Roman population. Gaul, however, had very nasty barbarians in great numbers because Germany was next door, gaul mattered less economically and is quite hard to conquer from Italy. In fact I don't think that an army has ever advanced from Italy to conquer France. (Caesar started in Gaul) .

All quite true. It would follow that besides Theudebert the Frankish kings would have had little motivation to treat with Belisarius. Theudebert along with the Burgundians were in fact their buffer.

Quote from: aligern on December 14, 2012, 12:47:53 PMSo I very much doubt that Procopius met Roman descended soldiers in Italy.  It would make an interesting novel though!
Roy

As part of a Frankish embassy, no. As part of a private Gallo-roman visit, perhaps.

Quote from: aligern on December 14, 2012, 12:47:53 PM

The next logical phase of reconquest after Africa was surely Spain which is where Justinian actually went with the same strategy he had in Africa and then Italy i.e, exploiting dissension in the barbarian ruling group. Clovis  inheritance structure had provided a nice divide in Gaul so it would have been easy to  pick a fight. However, he didn't do this and I suggest that is because Gaul is not economically or  emotionally important to the Romans.  Africa had the wealth and Rome the prestige and above all the barbarians there and in Spain were small in number and  not well aligned to the Roman population. Gaul, however, had very nasty barbarians in great numbers because Germany was next door, gaul mattered less economically and is quite hard to conquer from Italy. In fact I don't think that an army has ever advanced from Italy to conquer France. (Caesar started in Gaul) .

Would Justinian have avoided trying for Gaul because he deemed it not worth the candle?  He indeed had a go at Spain, albeit not a very effective one, and there I think the spirit was willing but the forces were weak.  This (plus a spot of bother with the Lombards) I would see as the main reason why he did not try for Gaul.

If we want an army advancing from Italy to conquer Gaul, we could count Septimius Severus in AD 197, Aurelian sorting out Tetricus' followers in AD 274 or Theodosius clobbering Eugenius (or Arbogast) at the Frigidus in AD 394.  I leave out Constantine II, Maximus Magnus and Constantius III, all of whom lost Gaul to an Italy-based rival (although in the latter case Honorius did not meaningfully get it back).

Limiting it to France, the best I can offer is Anvil-Dragoon in 1944 - a bit out of period.  :)


Patrick

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 14, 2012, 06:35:48 PM



Limiting it to France, the best I can offer is Anvil-Dragoon in 1944 - a bit out of period.  :)


Patrick

Napoleon and the Hundred Days? Elba is in Italy, isn't it? 

Come to think of it, Gaul, especially northern Gaul, was relatively prosperous in this period. It had not degenerated into a state of anarchy or near-anarchy as had Britain or parts of Spain and north Africa. The economic centre of Western Europe in the centuries to come would shift to northern Gaul/Rhineland and stay there. I imagine that had Belisarius had more time and resources he would have had a crack at Frankish Gaul. His contemporaries certainly would have had the same thought.

Quote from: Erpingham on December 14, 2012, 07:05:48 PM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 14, 2012, 06:35:48 PM

Limiting it to France, the best I can offer is Anvil-Dragoon in 1944 - a bit out of period.  :)

Patrick

Napoleon and the Hundred Days? Elba is in Italy, isn't it?

Strictly speaking, yes: it is 12 miles off the coast of Tuscany so is just within the usual 'territorial waters' limit.

Of course, both of these 'successful' invasions came by sea and did not involve Italian troops so might be outside Roy's intended frame of reference.

Unlikely that Belisarius would go for Gaul as he had already exceeded his mandate by taking in Northern Italy. It is likely that Justinian wanted Rome back because that was the prestige site. When Belisarius recaptures Rome he has locks fitted and keys made to send back to Constantinople.

Belisarius might have had a go at Gaul if he had accepted the Goths offer and taken on the mantle of Western Roman emperor. then of course it would have been dangerous to have been away across the Alps with a very annoyed Justinian to his strategic rear.

As to Roman attacks into Gaul I venture to suggest that they are different in quality from a conquest based in Italy because the emperors concerned were operating across Roman territory, from and into Roman territory and the ones in Italy had a trump card in that they had the legitimacy  conferred by the possession of Rome. When their armies moved into Gaul they could expect cooperation and supply. It would have been very different for Belisarius because the ex Romans would be at best neutral and the Franks could draw on further armies from the north. Caesar had the enormous advantage of the Province as a safe haven and base.
Roy

Belisarius accepting the crown from the Goths is one of my favourite what-if alternate histories.  Justinian would indeed have been annoyed, but bringing together a force capable of doing something about it might have been another matter.

At the very least Belisarius would have been able to re-run Majorian's campaigns with the added bonus of Africa being a ripe plum.  The one significant unknown is how the Visigoths would have reacted: would they have been willing to join with Belisarius against the Franks?  If so, the Frankish kingdom might have been quite short-lived and Belisarius may have achieved at least the same kind of suzerainty over Gaul as Aetius held, perhaps even more.

Incidentally, anyone who has Imperium Romanum II will probaby remember the last (hypothetical) scenario on exactly this subject: in that game, which may underrate the Franks, Belisarian conquest of Gaul is practically a foregone conclusion, provided Belisarius can administer a good drubbing to the Visigoths before the slow-moving Frankish armies can collect and march and before Justinian can shake loose a convincing army and a good general (Narses or the 2-rated eastern leader) from Illyria and the east (which usually requires first reducing the number of available Persians).

Forgive the fond bit of nostalgia.  Back to the topic.

Patrick

Quote from: aligern on December 15, 2012, 11:33:25 AM
Unlikely that Belisarius would go for Gaul as he had already exceeded his mandate by taking in Northern Italy. It is likely that Justinian wanted Rome back because that was the prestige site. When Belisarius recaptures Rome he has locks fitted and keys made to send back to Constantinople.

But Justin's point about possible Frankish embassies depends not on Belisarius' intentions, but on the Franks' and Gallo-Romans' perceptions of his possible next move. They probably didn't know exactly what his mandate was - just that Imperial armies seemed to be moving in their direction.

 I rather presume that Justinian had told them his war aims when he engaged in diplomatic activities to provike them to attack the Goths in 536. I would have to go look up whether we have an actual embassy  recorded, but it would fit with the modus operandi of the Byzantines in say 507  where attacks were co ordinated.

I still rest on the likelihood that, if Procopius had met a Frankish embassy he'd have recorded it and most certainly that if he had met a Frankish embassy sporting Roman kit we would hear about it.

The Franks in Northern Italy in the first Gothic war   (up to 541) have come as allies of the Goths who are surprised when the Franks turn on them.
Roy

If the Justinian did engage in diplomatic activities with the Franks there must have been an embassy of sorts - some kind of face-to-face communication. Presuming that Belisarius treated with Theudebert (who probably didn't have armed Gallo-romans in his entourage) it is at least possible that Gallo-romans from Childebert's realm visited Belisarius in their personal capacity to gauge how they would be affected by the big events. It would have been one visit amongst many and hence not worthy of entering the political account which focussed on the central events.

Clovis had received the dignity of consul from the Eastern Empire after his victory at Vouille, with the implication that he was still technically part of the Roman Empire (a bit like the Commonwealth) and the further implication that the Eastern Empire could intervene in Frankish affairs if it saw fit. That surely would have been on everyone's mind in the mid 500's as the Imperial armies moved westwards.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 15, 2012, 10:52:45 PM
Belisarius accepting the crown from the Goths is one of my favourite what-if alternate histories.  Justinian would indeed have been annoyed, but bringing together a force capable of doing something about it might have been another matter.

Ah, fond memories of Lest Darkness Fall. Though B isn't King in that scenario, he does turn up as a general of the Gothic kingdom.

This paper is a perhaps useful overview of the Armorican question.

http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/wiseman/DECB/Wiseman-Dalmas-JAEMA.pdf (http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/wiseman/DECB/Wiseman-Dalmas-JAEMA.pdf)

Very interesting, Patrick. Let me make a couple of off-the-cuff remarks.

1. I think it a bit of a reach to identify the Armoricans of Procopius with the Bretons living (substantially) in the western peninsula of Armorica. The original Roman Armorica covered a region roughly analogous with the Roman domain of Aegidius and Syagrius north of the Loire and extending beyond the Seine, incorporating the four Roman provinces of Lugdunensis II, III, IV Senonia and Belgica II. The Armoricans themselves are said by Procopius to have united with the Franks and become a single people, which to my mind implies more than simple nominal vassalage, as was the case with the Bretons.

2. Procopius records that the Armoricans became soldiers of the Romans in the 470's, the time of the Visigothic conquest of Spain. Nothing suggests that these were not Armoricans proper - inhabitants of the Roman territory north of the Loire - and not just Bretons (though of course it does not exclude the latter).

3. Syagrius must have ruled the whole Roman territory north of the Loire, not just a portion of the former province of Belgica II north of the Seine. Remigius, bishop of Reims, in a letter to Clovis, relates that he has heard that the Frankish chieftain 'has taken up/received the administration of Belgica II." Such a phrase, from such a source, can only mean that Clovis was granted jurisdiction over the Roman province by a Roman authority - and not that he took it by force. The only Roman authority left in the area was Syagrius. If all Syagrius himself controlled was Belgica II then that effectively would have meant a capitulation to the Frankish chief, an abdication of political power. But Procopius later recounts how Syagrius was not afraid to meet Clovis in battle, implying that the Roman dux had enough military muscle to be confident of beating him. If he no longer ruled anything, where did he get that military power from? The only logical conclusion is that he still exercised control over the other three provinces of Armorica and drew his military strength from them.

4. The 'other Roman soldiers' that gave themselves and lands over to the Armoricans and Franks were not ethnically distinct from the Armoricans who had fought against the Franks. One needs to understand the social situation in northern Roman Gaul. Chris Wickham in Framing the Early Middle Ages brings forward convincing evidence that the Gallo-roman aristocracy north of the Seine remained in possession of their estates, perhaps more so than anywhere else in the former western Empire except Italy. Furthermore, they had become militarised, faced with the constant barbarian threat from the nearby German frontier. This led them to abandon the civilian rural life of otium practiced by their southern colleagues in their splendid villas, and move to the towns. They possessed bucellarii, and after the collapse of the Imperial system, became the natural heirs of the Roman military units still stationed in northern Gaul. In Syagrius they recognised the last figure of Roman authority. After his defeat at Soissons (and probable deposition and flight) they were effectively autonomous. Each would react against Clovis in his own way. Some would resist the Franks; others, further away from the Frankish threat and nearer the Visigothic one, would not. It was these latter and their troops who, at the final peace, would have to decide who to join: the Gallo-roman nobility joined with Clovis, or the Visigoths. They chose the former.