The Empire is dead, long live the army

[Jim Webster]

 Huge Barbarian armies is a literary Topos with a long pedigree. I'd be wary of the 75,000 for a start. Mind you, remember Theodoric's comment. "A poor Roman plays the Goth, a rich Goth the Roman" 

The 30,000 Franks (if that is indeed the correct number) might well include Burgundians, Visigoths, and small Gallic landowners who'd become Franks. 553AD is three generations after Soissons. Plenty of time for the boundaries to become blurred.

Jim

[aligern]

No no no Patrick. The army sent to Italy in 553 is very largely Allamanic and is led by two Allamannic dukes.
If we believe the figure of 35000 for the Allamanni at Strasbourg then IMO that is a large force, at or hear home base. Franks are mentioned at Rimini, but only a small force and these might be Allamans as well.  I very much doubt if the Allamans are capable of delivering many more men and to get them across to Italy it would be a lot less.
The Frankish kings have a bit of a history of sending others to fight and that might be a matter of realpolitik or even of plausible deniability.  It is very very unlikely that there were 75,000 in any German army.
Of course I know that you won't be convinced Patrick. we just have to accept that some of us see ancient numbers as being entirely trustworthy and some see them as gospel. i very much doubt whether Agathias had access to any count of these Allamanni, it is possible that not even Lothar and Buccelin knew the number of their own men.
Roy

[Justin Swanton]

It is very very unlikely that there were 75,000 in any German army.

It appears that Narses led between 20,000 and 30,000 imperial troops into Italy. These would have been the best that Justinian could supply. Up until his confrontation with Butilinus, Narses won his battles with very little loss of men. At the Battle of the Volturnus he had 18,000 men, which suggests the Franks/Alamans had at least as many, probably more. Since that number was less than what Butilinus originally set out with, the implication is that the combined Frankish-Allemanic army was very large indeed.

Presuming that half the original combined force was Frankish, the other half Alemanic, and even scaling down the numbers, it becomes quite plausible that when the Franks and Alamans mixed it up at Tolbiac 50 years previously, each side could have mustered anything from 20,000 men upwards. The Alamans had fielded a force of 35,000 men a century and a half before that. The numbers certainly seem to tie up.

[Jim Webster]

The fact that the sources are no more accurate than 'between 20,000 and 30,000 men' should teach us to be wary.
As for them being the best that Justinian could supply, a fair proportion were barbarians hired by Narses on his way to Italy. He had good personal links with the Heruls and also hired a lot of Lombards.
Justinian provided the cash and some men.
The fact that the Eastern Empire couldn't field an army of 20,000 without frantically hiring barbarians to pad the numbers out shows us that it's ridiculous to assume a 10,000 strong field army in Gaul in 486AD
Similarly there is no reason to assume the Franks outnumbered Narses. They might have been desperate to fight to get supplies or to a healthier area, they might have been grossly overconfident, or they may have just been badly let down by their intelligence.
Army commanders do give battle when they shouldn't, either because they have to or merely make mistakes , there is no reason why the Franks should be immune to this.

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

The fact that the sources are no more accurate than 'between 20,000 and 30,000 men' should teach us to be wary.

It does however give us an idea of scale: 20,000-30,000 and not, say, 2,000 to 3,000.

The fact that the Eastern Empire couldn't field an army of 20,000 without frantically hiring barbarians to pad the numbers out shows us that it's ridiculous to assume a 10,000 strong field army in Gaul in 486AD

Not necessarily, Jim.  Justinian had been throwing away troops on the Persian frontier since the start of his reign, then doing the same in Illyria and Africa, plus sending a large contingent to Lazica.  Furthermore, his reign was noteworthy for a virulent and widespread plague which did nothing to help with manpower levels.  Conversely, as was earlier pointed out on this thread, the Domain of Soissons had had a period of relative peace, good for increasing population, revenue and forces.

Having wondered about Agathias' reliability, I did a bit of reading of his surviving work.  His tone is surprisingly level-headed and realistic, and when we can evaluate him on detail (e.g. on the equipment of Franks he appears to be more precise, and perhaps more accurate, than Procopius) he is sufficiently reliable for some scholars to have suspected him of being pagan! 

Therefore when he says 75,000 Alemanni and Franks invaded Italy I take him as being substantially correct.  Had he been of the Orosius school I would have serious reservations doing so - Orosius seems to be good and bad, largely depending on his source, a proverbial curate's egg of a historian.  Agathias, however, where he is checkable seems to check out.

[Justin Swanton]

Procopius gives a precise description of the nationalities and numbers of the barbarian contingents used by Narses:

2,500 Lombards
3,000 Herules
'Great numbers' of Huns
'Many' Persian deserters
400 Gepids
'Many' more Herules

He does not give the precise number of the regular contingents of the Eastern Roman army, speaking only of 'a host of Roman fighting men.' The Roman component of the army was raised by Germanus, who had been given access to the imperial treasury by Justinian with permission 'to raise a very formidable army from Thrace and Illyricum.' Narses himself brought 'a notable army' from Constantinople which combined with the troops raised by Germanus.

Expeditionary armies in this period were around the 20,000 man mark. Belisarius fielded 25,000 men at Dara, and at least 20,000 men at Callinicum. He led more than 17,000 men against the Vandals. Praesental armies, about 20,000 men apiece, could be combined: 38,000 men in Thrace in 478 (a praesental army with the regional army of Thrace), 52,000 men in 503 (2 praesental armies combined with a 12,000 man force under the Magister Militum per Orientis). The Roman contingent of Narses army can hence be calculated at at least 20,000 men.

It must also be noted that expeditionary armies made generous use of barbarian contingents: the regular recruiting mechanisms were insufficient when it was necessary to quickly increase the size of available forces. Barbarian units, usually skilled horsemen, were an ideal answer to the sudden need for short-term manpower.

Agathius records Narses possessing 18,000 men at Casilinum, by which point he had dismissed the Lombards. This is after garrisons, sieges and casualties had whittled down his numbers, with no mention of reinforcements. It is unlikely that a force of a few thousand Alaman/Frankish warriors would have contemplated giving battle to a trained and experienced army this size.

[Jim Webster]

Yes, 20,000 for an Empire which included Africa, Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Thrace and Greece.
Not a couple of cut off provinces in northern Gaul
Yes, Justinian had more problems but he had the whole eastern part of the Empire to share them with. Julian Norwich estimates the army on Justinian's death to be 150,000, which is field armies, garrisons, the lot.
Yet a rump state between the Somme and the Loire was supposed to have a field army of 10,000 men. And that all local Roman recruits. Not padded out with barbarian mercenaries!

Jim

[Jim Webster]

Agathius records Narses possessing 18,000 men at Casilinum, by which point he had dismissed the Lombards. This is after garrisons, sieges and casualties had whittled down his numbers, with no mention of reinforcements. It is unlikely that a force of a few thousand Alaman/Frankish warriors would have contemplated giving battle to a trained and experienced army this size.

You're assuming he had a choice. It wasn't an equal points game, it was a Frankish army crippled by disease that had come to a halt and had got a Byzantine army across their way home. They had two choices, fight or surrender.
They'd have had the same choice whether they'd had 10,000 men or 50,000 men.

Jim

[Justin Swanton]

Yes, 20,000 for an Empire which included Africa, Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Thrace and Greece.
Not a couple of cut off provinces in northern Gaul
Yes, Justinian had more problems but he had the whole eastern part of the Empire to share them with. Julian Norwich estimates the army on Justinian's death to be 150,000, which is field armies, garrisons, the lot.
Yet a rump state between the Somme and the Loire was supposed to have a field army of 10,000 men. And that all local Roman recruits. Not padded out with barbarian mercenaries!

Jim

Yes....one has the image of Syagrius holed up in a little corner of Gaul the size of a Welsh principality. Images however can be deceiving. Below is a map showing the relative sizes of Syagrius's domain and the Eastern Empire. One must keep in mind that all of Syagrius's land was fertile and arable, whereas large swathes of the Empire were unproductive mountain or desert. Looking at the map can one see any reason for Syagrius not maintaining an army one fifteenth the size of the Eastern Empire's establishment?

[rodge]

Halsall has Syagrius holed up in a Kingdom that extended as far as his troops could march in a day....

[Jim Webster]

Seriously Justin, I think you ought to treat yourself to 'Fifth-Century Gaul: A Crisis of Identity."

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fifth-Century-Gaul-A-Crisis-Identity/dp/0521529336

There is a whole heap of stuff there that will answer your question far better than I can.

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

Halsall has Syagrius holed up in a Kingdom that extended as far as his troops could march in a day....

But on what basis?

Gentlemen, do we feel we have gone about as far as we can with this topic?

[aligern]

Justin, I don't think that we can claim that Justinian sent some sort of elite army with Narses. This was the army that Germanus was gathering before he died and was likely based heavily upon the forces in Illyria and Thrace, nearest the Italian theatre. As has been pointed out t was bulked up with barbarians. Of the 5000 Lombards half are 'elite' half are retainers. The Gepids sound lije a pPrince and his retinue, there a couple of thousand Heruls, perhaps 1,500 Huns or Bulgars.
As Jim poiinted out inperial expeditionary armies are mostly around the 20,000 mark. On the Eastern frontier50,000 men are assembled and they do nothing, probably because the whole is too big to move. The ability of the East to raise more soldiers is because of the large number of troops in garrisons there that can be added to the mobile armies.   Estimates of Sasanian armies come to similar conclusions, a major effort is 50,000 men, a more normal army around 20,000.
The main limit on armies is feeding them. For E A Thompson one of the main differences between Barbarian and Roman armies is that the lattter have much more professional logistics. The Romans carry with them wagon loads of food and of weapons. Given that Justinian has a problem building up a force of much more than 20,000 is it really conceivable that the Allamanni  can bring 75,000  men across the Alps?  To take another Procopian number is it really feasible that the Goths in Italy have 200,000 men , especially when the evidence is good that Theoderic invades Italy with around 20,000. Can we believe that after the revolt of Milan the Goths and Burgundians massacre 300,000 of the rebellious citizens? These numbers occur in the context of authors who are otherwise stating quite reasonable figures. It may well be a matter of the sources that Procopius and Agathias are using  ( though the source for the Goth number is supposedly a letter of Procopius to Justinian. This is the same author who gives a listing of Gothic garrisons and  Byzantine detachments that is realistic within much smaller total numbers.  Hence I suggest that the big numbers are official propaganda. It suited the imperial regime to exaggerate the number of barbarian enemies , especially when those barbarians are subsequently beaten and to  overestimate the number of Romans massacred by the barbarian enemy. The numbers of detachments or of contingents in the army  quite likely come from. official reports .

[rodge]

Gentlemen, do we feel we have gone about as far as we can with this topic?

The discussion may have run it's course as I do not believe there are any new facts for us to uncover that could advance either side of the debate or sway us from the respective positions.
The critical point of when the Army of Gaul collapsed (and was no longer a potent force) divides us, and there is no conclusive evidence for that.

On Halsall I cannot find the quote, it was in my notes and I did not reference it. My apologies. If I find it and it has anything compelling to support his statement I will post it.

[aligern]

History of the Wars 8.20.26
She accordingly collected four hundred ships immediately and put on board them an army of not fewer than one hundred thousand fighting men, and she in person led forth this expedition against the Varni.

This is Procopius on the revenge of the Anglian queen . Four hundred ships is oretty well unbelievable, let alone cramming 100,000 men into them , but it is understandable in a. context in which the attitude to numbers is not like our modern attitude.
And yes, I agree that we should bring this line to a close!
Roy