The Empire is dead, long live the army

[aligern]

I wouldn't say 10.000 was awfully large Jim. the Goths at Adrianople had north of 20,000 men. Which I think is a reasonable estimate given that they defeat the East Roman field army and from later estimates we can see Roman Eastern armies of 20,000 to a maximum with huge effort of 50,000.
I would work with tribal armies on the basis of:
Small tribe 5000 warriors
Medium tribe 10,000
Large tribe 20,000
For comparison it appears that the two Gothic tribes in the Balkans in the 480s had about 10,000 warriors each which meant that each was a tough prospect for the Eastern Romans to take on. When Theoderic the Great combined them he moved to super-tribe status, became a real threat and triggered the emperor to send him and his people off to Italy to fight Odovakar.
those sorts of ranking numbers are consistent with the numbers quoted for the Heruls who were once a large or at least mid sized tribe, but had declined through defeat and splitting. It also fits with the Lombards, being a medium sized tribe who send half their number of warriors to fight with Narses in Italy. Incidentally such number rankings make sense of the Vandals too. Initially there are two groups of Vandals with say 10,000 each and the Alans who may have 5-10,000. They are attacked by an army of Visigoths, a 20,000 strong tribe and the Siling Vandals and Alans are crushed. The tribes then unite under Gaiseric and become a 20,000 warrior unit which conquers North  Africa. That fits with the military potential of a tribe being 25% of the overall number of its people. Over the next eighty years the number of Vandal warriors declines because being on the move in migration makes men available that settled life does not.
So how about Northern France?
I would see the Franks as a combined entity having somewhat  more than 20,000 warriors, but Clovis has only a portion of them. He moves to increase that number and. thus is in the 10 thousand range by the time he takes on Syagrius. On that basis I would see Syagrius having  a similar sized force.
Clovis then adds in forces which enable him to take on the Allamanni and then the Visigoths.

As a cross check on this we have the armies, not Frankish, but sent by Frankish kings  that intervene in Italy.  At one point there are a believable force of 10,000 Burgundians and in 554 a force that splits in half to provide an army that takes on Narses  who has approximately 18,000 men (his Taginae force minus the Lombards and other detachments)
The logic of this is, of course, based upon generals not seeking battle against armies that outnumber them very substantially.
On the continent I would tend to go for quite large armies because we know that tribal forces stood up to substantial Roman armies earlier and that the mechanism for raising tribal armies has not changed. If the Visigoths plausibly have 20,000 men in the Late fourth century and have had no reason to decline since then I cannot see why other players in the game of thrones that was Gaul would have much much smaller forces. If they did then the Visigoths would just have crushed them, or the Allamanni would have headed South and dominated the territory.

Roy

[Jim Webster]

10,000 was an large army in Roman terms in this period. You are talking about someone who was controlling perhaps a quarter of Gaul.
As I said, Stilicho managed to scrape together 30,000 men (perhaps) and he controlled Gaul, Spain and Italy.
The Field Army of the Magister Equitum Intra Gallias was probably about that strong and that was the largest western field army

The problem with your barbarians and numbers is that if you work by relative rankings, the same system works if you decide that they had half the numbers, a quarter of the numbers or ten times the numbers. We have very few firm points to anchor the figures to, a reputed 80,000 Vandals crossing to Africa, which might include 30,000 slaves for all we know. There's also an estimate that 10,000 Goths died at Frigidus,  which is 50% of the Adrianople figure dead. That's going to put a crimp in their numbers if either figure has any sort of realism


But taking the figure of 20,000 for the standard field army of the Eastern Empire, you're asking us to believe that somewhere barely the size of Cilicia is going to raise 10,000.

So let's start with a field army of 2000 for Syagrius which looks reasonable in proportion to the armies of Gaul earlier in the century.  He faces the Franks for whom we have no real numbers and can hold his own against them. So the Franks might be able to raise 1000 warriors and by really shaking the tree they can get perhaps another nine thousand who have arms, but who aren't available for long term operations because they've got jobs to do.
Of this force Clovis has perhaps his household, say 300 full time warriors and he can shake out perhaps a thousand more for temporary operations.
So until Clovis gets control of the rest of the Franks he's not a problem, and even when he is a problem, 2000 field army and a further four or five thousand limitanei/estate guards/local landowners  private retainers should be enough to tie him down in sieges of towns he cannot take until his men get bored and have to go home.

Jim

[Jim Webster]

Also remember the Goths were a 'militarised' tribe. They received a lot of money from the Eastern Empire (and at times the Western Empire) so the proportion of their men who could afford to fight would be a lot higher than, for example, the Franks, who had basically expanded across the Rhine into a vacuum and who were supporting themselves by subsistence agriculture rather than being paid by the Empire

Jim

[aligern]

I recall that the Goth contingent at Frigidus was 10,000 which doesn't mean that they all died, Jim.
The benefit of my relativist approach is that it can be checked at points for consistency against some numbers that we have more certainty about. These Goths from the Frigudus are later able to take on Stilicho as equals and I do not see him as being likely to put less than 20,000 men in the field.  later on against the Ostrogoths I would see the army of Italy under Odovacar as being around the 20,000 men or Theoderic would have had a much easier time at conquering Italy....or rather Odovacar would not have cone out and fought, but stayed behind walls unless he had parity of numbers. Stilicho had more. resources than later Imperial armies, but he had the ptoblem of usurpers in Gaul and Africa.

Remember I don't see Syagrius as having 10,000 permanent soldiers around, but that he can raise this through allies, limitanei , laeti (which I listed)

Aetius , not that much earlier managed to put together a 'Roman' army to fight against Attila which included all those contingents that I list plus a force of Franks, plus a large army of Visigoths and Aetius brought few troops. with him from Italy. So if Attila had a large army of 25'000 men and we gave Aetius 10,000 Goths , 4000 Alans 5000 Franks. and 10,000 Romans then the Allies have 30,000 men.
Note that I am not supporting 10,000 Palatini for Syagrius and his personal retinue might well be 2000 but then that would not be his full mobile military potential.

Roy

[aligern]

I should also say that we do not know how many barbarians Syagrius had settled upon his lands. I think there may well be an Ostrogothic contingent and a Saxon  contingent and Franks. Plus what happens to the Orleans Alans? Are the Taifali still militarised? We know somewhat later thatthey are a community because  they have a bishop, but they may well still be a biddable force and their relationship to Rome is what gave them a legal claim to land and perhaps lical subsidies so Syagrius might inherit that loyalty.
Roy

[Jim Webster]

All we can do is relative, but we can set relative lower rather than higher. If we take the Frankish figure for Chalon as 5000, then Syagrius  is going to be able to overawe them with a force of 2000 regulars.
Because the Franks settled themselves, I'd suggest they wouldn't have the wealth or organisation that we see with, for example, the Visigoths who were, at least for a while, part of the Imperial Army under Alaric who held an official position which would give them access to arsenals, factories and regular logistical support.

Jim

[Justin Swanton]

10,000 was an large army in Roman terms in this period. You are talking about someone who was controlling perhaps a quarter of Gaul.
As I said, Stilicho managed to scrape together 30,000 men (perhaps) and he controlled Gaul, Spain and Italy.
The Field Army of the Magister Equitum Intra Gallias was probably about that strong and that was the largest western field army

Here is a proposed breakdown of the western army, based on the Notitia Dignitatum:



Note that the Gallic field army was based at Paris, in the heart of what was to become Syagrius's realm. His borders also contained the bases of the Dux Belgicae II and the Dux Tractus Armoricani, for a total of 35 000 men, all provisioned from this area.

Stilicho, it seems, did not dispose of these forces, as his 30 000 men corresponds to the forces immediately available to the Magister Utriusque Militiae (himself). This suggests that he was not permitted to combine the two Palatine armies - presuming that the Illyrican Palatines no longer existed. I see more a limiting of his power than a simple lack of resources. It certainly seems odd that a combined total of well over 60 000 palatine/comitatens men in Gaul and Italy in 406 should leave Stilicho - who stripped the Rhine and Danube frontiers of men - with 30 000 men in the same year. The low numbers for border units given by the Notitia suggests that the frontiers were indeed denuded of men. The hinterland legions however were untouched. It would be interesting to know what they were doing whilst the barbarians ran riot in Gaul. Honorius setting up Stilicho as a fall guy? Anything is possible in this period.

In any case, we have a region roughly comparable to the territory Syagrius would later control supporting a fully equipped professional force of +30 000 men. Given the continuity of the Roman infrastructure it is not unreasonable to suppose it could in 486 equip and supply a force one third or more of that size.

[Jim Webster]

I should also say that we do not know how many barbarians Syagrius had settled upon his lands. I think there may well be an Ostrogothic contingent and a Saxon  contingent and Franks. Plus what happens to the Orleans Alans? Are the Taifali still militarised? We know somewhat later thatthey are a community because  they have a bishop, but they may well still be a biddable force and their relationship to Rome is what gave them a legal claim to land and perhaps lical subsidies so Syagrius might inherit that loyalty.
Roy

All these would of course take land. If we assume they were settled on the usual 1/3rd of the land principle, then might make them into part of his 'field army' or it might merely mean that they took land he could no longer use, and they acted as bodyguards for their own leaders or for other local notables.
Jim

[rodge]

Are the Taifali still militarised? We know somewhat later thatthey are a community because  they have a bishop, but they may well still be a biddable force and their relationship to Rome is what gave them a legal claim to land and perhaps lical subsidies so Syagrius might inherit that loyalty.
Roy

Bachrach (whom I am aware is considered somewhat flakey in some circles) says in 'Merovingian Military Organization 481-751':

'Although Clovis' control of the Visigothic Kingdom in Gaul was challenged he and he lost Septimania, he was able to secure the more northerly areas.
The Taifal and Sarmatian leati in the Poitier area, as well as the Sarmatians in the Rodez-Velay region joined the Merovingian military' (p 12).

He cites the Notitia (so the information is a tad out of date...) but also says, citing Gregory, that the area around Poitier was so influenced by the Taifals that it was called Thifilia during the 6thC. This suggests they were still military capable.

[aligern]

Helpful point Rodger, Clovis will have had more than 5000 against Syagrius because he is putting together an alliance that gives him enough men to face The last Roman and that would need more.
the Franks were composed of several pre existing German tribes, the Ampsivarii, Bructerii, Chattuarii, Chamavii and Salii. If they were all 5000 warrior units that would give 25,000 warriors, if two were bigger entities that would take us to 35,000,interestingly the number given by Ammianus for a full muster of the Allamani against Julian. Of course, contra to certain Big Roman Army believers here I understand that Julian himself has a field army of 13000 at Strasbourg.
Roy

[aligern]

Oh, And I cannot agree that the Roman army in Gaul is supported from the area that Syagrius controls . The Romans had the wealth and taxes of Africa and Hispania backing Gaul and indeed grain exports from Britannia. Itis not. just a matter of grain, but. of  oil and wine and. iron and silver that moves north along a network of rivers and canals and roads. Once those ties are cut, particularly after Spain is wrecked after 409 , Aquitania  detached after 420 and Africa gone from 440 thenthe ability to support troops on the frontier collapses down to local initiative only.

Roy

[Andreas Johansson]

The Western Empire at the end of the 4th century had an army in the region of 200 000 men. Most of these were stationed on the ever-threatened Rhine and Danube frontiers. They would have been fed from local areas of agrarian production, since the Empire did not have such a developed infrastructure that it could cheaply transport bulk goods like grain long distances overland (and in fact bulk goods were not transported between the Mediterranean and northern Gaul).

I'm not sure what you're counting as "local" here, but Wickham in Framing the Early Middle Ages has much of northern Gaul involved in feeding the Rhine army. This presumably ends once the Rhine frontier breaks down, but the resources previously sent east could potentially be used to feed troops in the future "Syagria". The question is, I guess, to what extent the infrastructure to extract them for military use remained.

[rodge]

I must admit that I find the idea of a sizable Roman force in Gaul at odds with what I have read and surmised over the years (bearing in mind evidence is scarce and conjecture reigns).

The basis of Aegidius' forces may have been the remnants of the Army of Gaul, but these troops would not have presented the same threat the Gallic Comitatenses of the past offered.
More likely, when Aegidius broke with Rome, he used what was available; his own bucellarii (probably barbarian), foederati (some 'romanised' previously Comitatenses Franks) Coloni, Leati, Limitanei, garrison troops and troops raised from recruitment (Gallo-Romans and most likely Franks).

Some of Aegidius' forces may have previously been in the service of Majorian's (largely barbarian) force that was led into Spain. From John of Antioch:
'When he crossed into Italy, Ricimer plotted his death. Majorian had already dismissed his allies after his return.'
Now they may have been dismissed anywhere, but if dismissed in Gaul it is possible (I stress possible) they went north and were snapped up by Aegidius.

However how large this force was is moot; and even more moot the proportion of 'regular' Roman troops that mustered, that would once have stood proudly in the Army of Gaul.

How many of these troops were passed to Syagrius is open to yet more conjecture.
I think that the army that Syagrius led out of Soisson to face Clovis would have had a character more like the army of Clovis that it faced than a Gallic 'Roman' Comitatenses force of the past.

[Justin Swanton]

To sum up, my proposal that Syagrius's army was substantially Roman in character is based on this:

1. Syagrius's realm had the means to equip and provision a respectable army. The archaeological record confirms the persistence of trade and manufacture in northern Gaul, and there is evidence from several disciplines for the survival of the landed aristocracy in this region, who were capable of maintaining and did maintain troops.

2. Syagrius did indeed recreate an army using Gallo-roman recruits from his provinces. These are the 'Arborychi' of Procopius.

3. The Roman character of this army is indirectly alluded to by Procopius, who mentions 'other Roman soldiers (i.e. Roman soldiers in addition to those who had fought the Franks) on the frontier with the Visigoths. The 'legio bretonum' (the old II Britannica), still in existence in the mid 6th century, would be one of these units. It is in consequence reasonable to assume that the Roman military tradition had not died out in Syagrius's realm.

4. The army Syagrius created was, in his estimation, more than enough to deal with Clovis, who led a Frankish confederation against him. This confidence would come either from superior numbers or superior quality. The successful Gallo-roman resistance against Clovis after the fall of Syagrius, and the fact that the Gallo-romans and Franks 'held them [the Roman soldiers] in reverence' after the final peace, implies quality. An army better in quality than a good barbarian one (the Franks had an excellent track record as federates) had to have been Roman in training and equipment.

[rodge]

The 'legio bretonum' (the old II Britannica), still in existence in the mid 6th century, would be one of these units.

Justin, I would be very grateful if you could point me at the evidence for this.
I have read, in translation, the relevant section of the  'Vita Sancti Dalmatii' that mentions the 'legio bretonum'. Is there more?