The Empire is dead, long live the army

[rodge]

Childeric seems to have returned to his Frankish throne c.462 as he fought jointly with Aegidius against the Visigoths in 463

What prompts you to think Childeric was an ally of Aegidius in 463 Patrick? Where in the sources is this stated? Gregory does not say this.

[rodge]

As Rodger has pointed out, Gregory of Tours tells us that Aegidius was elected King of the Franks when they became disenchanted with Childeric

Gregory is replaying Frankish custom from that time.
The rex-warlord achieves election by military prowess and the Chronica Gallica 511 (one of Gregory's sources) ascribes Aegidius' greatest victory (at Orleans) to Frankish troops (not, I might add, Childeric's Frankish troops).
They went for the most recent winner.

Didn't the Ostrogoths also attempt to elect Belesarius as their rex?

[Andreas Johansson]

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?

Er? In some sense, sure, they're both part of the process of turning Gallia into Francia. But that doesn't mean they're the same thing - a processes can have multiple parts after all.

(I'm probably missing your point somehow - I find your remark rather bewildering.)

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.

Franks are first heard of in the 3rd century I believe. For the rest, we seem to basically agree - initial "alignment"  followed by later assimilation. The Franks embracing Catholicism no doubt made assimilation easier.  I'd make a a few additional points:

i) The assimilation, as regards ethnic self-identification, was in the Frankish direction - evidently Romans aspired to Frankishness more than Franks to romanitas. This must suggest than being Frankish was advantageous (hardly surprising under a new regime where the guy at the top of the heap was a Frank).

ii) Assimilation is not a necessary follow-up to "alignment". Persia didn't turn Arab, frex, despite Persian nobles aligning with the new rulers once the Sassanids were done for.

iii) Re speed of convergence, it might be interesting to look at names. I've read that in Lombard Italy, through-out the 7th century, aristocratic families of Lombard and Roman origin tended to stick to names of respectively Germanic and Latin origin.

[Erpingham]

Is there, or are they both part of a process?

Er? In some sense, sure, they're both part of the process of turning Gallia into Francia. But that doesn't mean they're the same thing - a processes can have multiple parts after all.

(I'm probably missing your point somehow - I find your remark rather bewildering.)

Apologies for confusion, Andreas.  I think you got the drift - I was suggesting that we are seeing two parts of the same process, not two separate processes.  However, reading your reply, I had misunderstood what you were saying - we are broadly in agreement as you point out in the remainder of your post.

[Patrick Waterson]

Childeric seems to have returned to his Frankish throne c.462 as he fought jointly with Aegidius against the Visigoths in 463

What prompts you to think Childeric was an ally of Aegidius in 463 Patrick? Where in the sources is this stated? Gregory does not say this.

The Wikipedia entry for Aegidius quotes Hydatius 218 on this point; Hydatius seems to be currently unobtainable online in English translation (though one can buy Richard Burgess' translation for a mere $500 or so) and the only online Latin version has an entirely different system, so either it is in there somewhere or the law that secondary sources will always let one down strikes again.

See also the Wikipedia entry on Childeric.

Didn't the Ostrogoths also attempt to elect Belisarius as their rex?

Yes, well remembered, though Belisarius ended up having the worst of both worlds by declining the invitation while nevertheless being suspected and stripped of his appointment as general by Justinian.  If only he had accepted ...

[rodge]

The Wikipedia entry for Aegidius quotes Hydatius 218 on this point;

Hydatius 218 in translation says:
218. Against Aegidius, Count and Master of the Soldiers, a man both recommended by repute and pleasing well the Lord by good deeds, Frederic the brother of King Theodoric had been struggling, with these men against those men in the province Armorica, and having been overcome, was killed.'

No mention of fighting with Childeric, in fact no mention of Childeric at all.
I cannot find reference to any cooperation between Aegidius and Childeric in any source.

[Justin Swanton]

The Wikipedia entry for Aegidius quotes Hydatius 218 on this point;

Hydatius 218 in translation says:
218. Against Aegidius, Count and Master of the Soldiers, a man both recommended by repute and pleasing well the Lord by good deeds, Frederic the brother of King Theodoric had been struggling, with these men against those men in the province Armorica, and having been overcome, was killed.'

No mention of fighting with Childeric, in fact no mention of Childeric at all.
I cannot find reference to any cooperation between Aegidius and Childeric in any source.

Which, if true.....needs double-checking....leads to the question: who were 'those men in the province Armorica' who, without help from anyone else, were able to beat the Visigoths and kill the brother of the king?
Do I see a R _ _ _ _  F_ _ _ _  A _ _ _ ?

Personally I don't trust secondary sources at all, especially not for this period, something which makes my life difficult. 

[rodge]

We do not necessarily see a Roman Field Army.
In fact we probably see Aegidius leading an army that is largely Frankish according to the Gallic Chronicle 511.

It's odd that if he was so strong (Roman Field Army or another more diverse military force) that in May 464 or 5 he asks for help from the Vandals.

Hydatius 224. In the month of May ambassadors pass over the Atlantic Ocean to the Vandals with words, said in advance by Aegidius, and they return to him by the same voyage in the month of September.


This suggests another major competitor in the ring. It coincides with 'king' Childeric's returning from his exile.....and Aegidius is the current Rex.
Perhaps they were less chummy than everyone thinks?

Not sure what you mean about secondary sources here Justin.
I assume you refer back to the Wiki article? Hydatius is as primary as Procopius or Agathias; in fact he was closer to the action in a) location and b) time.

[Patrick Waterson]

We do not necessarily see a Roman Field Army.
In fact we probably see Aegidius leading an army that is largely Frankish according to the Gallic Chronicle 511.

It's odd that if he was so strong (Roman Field Army or another more diverse military force) that in May 464 or 5 he asks for help from the Vandals.

Not really: he has to leave someone behind to mind the shop, and who better than his reliable troops?  If he can get the barbarians to take losses fighting against each other on his behalf (a policy the intact Roman Empire had previously habitually followed by playing off German tribes and princelings against each other) so much the better - and he would anyway want to talk to the Vandals on the basis that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  Besides, if he really were weak what chance of success would an embassy to the Vandals have in the first place?  It would just be a waste of good presents (and possibly diplomats) and leave him open to the scorn of rejection.  Had he really been weak and without an army he would have gone in person (cf. Aetius after the Battle of Ravenna going to the Huns and Syagrius after the Battle of Soissons going to the Visigoths) to try his all to bring one back with him (it worked for Aetius with the Huns).

Rodger, now that you are on the hunt, have you found anything relating to Aegidius' forces and/or military operations during Majorian's campaigns?

Hydatius 224. In the month of May ambassadors pass over the Atlantic Ocean to the Vandals with words, said in advance by Aegidius, and they return to him by the same voyage in the month of September.


This suggests another major competitor in the ring. It coincides with 'king' Childeric's returning from his exile.....and Aegidius is the current Rex.
Perhaps they were less chummy than everyone thinks?

Perhaps.  If so, it argues for Aegidius being strong enough to carry on a campaign on two fronts (against the Visigoths and against Childeric) so the implications of this conjecture are interesting.

Not sure what you mean about secondary sources here Justin.
I assume you refer back to the Wiki article? Hydatius is as primary as Procopius or Agathias; in fact he was closer to the action in a) location and b) time.

'Twas indeed the Wikipedia articles on Childeric and Aegidius, which Justin perhaps wisely eschewed.

[Justin Swanton]

We do not necessarily see a Roman Field Army.
In fact we probably see Aegidius leading an army that is largely Frankish according to the Gallic Chronicle 511.

The text refers to 'the men of Armorica province', which would exclude the notion they are Franks since chroniclers of this period tended to name the barbarian tribes that served under/alongside the Romans. We are looking at a Gallo-roman force that fights for Aegidius. It ties up nicely with Procopius's Arborychi that begin to fight for the Romans by the time the Visigoths have conquered Spain.

It's odd that if he was so strong (Roman Field Army or another more diverse military force) that in May 464 or 5 he asks for help from the Vandals.

Actually, if he has a good army that puts him in a position to play the big politics game. Someone who can write to Vandals on the assumption they would take him seriously is someone who had a little more at his command than a little band of town militia from Soissons with perhaps a few barbarian stragglers and bucellarii, and the uncertain help of a minor tribe of local Franks.

Hydatius 224. In the month of May ambassadors pass over the Atlantic Ocean to the Vandals with words, said in advance by Aegidius, and they return to him by the same voyage in the month of September.


This suggests another major competitor in the ring. It coincides with 'king' Childeric's returning from his exile.....and Aegidius is the current Rex.
Perhaps they were less chummy than everyone thinks?

I just see Aegidius doing politicking here. One can't really read Childeric into the scenario. In any case the Vandals were hardly in a position to help Aegidius maintain his power against possibly hostile Franks. If Aegidius could not take care of himself he would need to get troops from somewhere - the Burgundians for example.

Not sure what you mean about secondary sources here Justin.
I assume you refer back to the Wiki article? Hydatius is as primary as Procopius or Agathias; in fact he was closer to the action in a) location and b) time.

I'm thinking of contemporary writers and articles (as Patrick mentioned) who sometimes do quite spectacular violence to the original sources.

My growing impression is that this period is not well documented but is sufficiently documented that by taking some trouble to reconcile the scattered primary sources one can draw some general conclusions, e.g. the fact that there was a 10 year war between the Battle of Soissons and the final peace after Clovis's baptism. I'm no historian, but it seems to me that this job of reconciliation has not yet been done. It is not helped by approaching the primary sources with an a priori scepticism, discounting or distorting them when they do not fit a favourite theory.

[Erpingham]

It is not helped by approaching the primary sources with an a priori scepticism, discounting or distorting them when they do not fit a favourite theory.

I think Justin, we are demonstrating it is very difficult not to approach the problem with assumptions or prior theories.   I am still baffled as to why we should assume, if troops come from Armorica, they should be considered elite forces of regular field army, or why only powerful field armies can fight ten year wars.  It is perfectly possible to consider a ten year war indicates a low intensity conflict, with neither side having the resources or will to land the knockout blow.

[rodge]

Patrick and Justin, I will respond to your points....but not right now as I'm a tad under the cosh.
Hopefully later today or at the w/e.

[Justin Swanton]

It is not helped by approaching the primary sources with an a priori scepticism, discounting or distorting them when they do not fit a favourite theory.

I think Justin, we are demonstrating it is very difficult not to approach the problem with assumptions or prior theories.   I am still baffled as to why we should assume, if troops come from Armorica, they should be considered elite forces of regular field army, or why only powerful field armies can fight ten year wars.  It is perfectly possible to consider a ten year war indicates a low intensity conflict, with neither side having the resources or will to land the knockout blow.

True, it is difficult. I have held and discarded a number of hypotheses on this period, and having been wrong often in the past I'm quite prepared to be wrong again.

On the field army question, I keep in mind the terminus ad quem: Procopius's 'other Roman soldiers', who were held in high regard by the Gallo-romans and Franks, were very particular about their Roman identity, and were not town garrison troops: they 'carry their standards into battle', i.e. if Procopius is to be believed they were field troops, belonging to former legions of the field army. I made a case earlier for one of these residual legions being the II Britannica, which was not a limitaneus legion, even less a garrison or militia unit.

Aegidius and Syagrius used these troops. They must have been involved in Aegidius's beating of the Visigoths and Saxons, and Syagrius's confident offensive against Clovis, and later in an effective border defence against the Visigoths along the Loire.

To argue a patchwork army for Aegidius and Syagrius means necessarily discarding this passage from Procopius, but nothing supports the notion that Procopius was making it up or listening to old wives' tales.

[aligern]

The difficulty that we have in believing that there is a LRFA in Northern Gaul is that there is  no clear neat reference to it and just when it should be there it vanishes from the chronicled accounts.
If historical truth is defined by being the explanation that best fits all the reasonable evidence then the idea of Aegidius and Syagrius having polyglot armies from varied sources is the cear winner.

Lately The proponents of Aegidius LRFA Have fallen back on identifying this force with the Aremorici or Arborychi. These are the heroes who, after Syagrius' flight, hold back the Franks for ten years. They are identified as the Romans of the Tractus Armoricanus which according to some, has to be the core of the Syagrian realm or rather what gves it the scale to support a field force.

There are some inconveniences in this view. Rodger kindly sent me this article :
http://www.persee.fr/web/ouvrages/home/prescript/article/efr_0000-0000_1993_act_168_1_4349
It suggests that the Aborychi of Procopius that the Franks take over are not Gallo Romans, but the 'Grands Bructeri', a nearby German tribe of federates that are incorporated into the Salii as they grow. The case is aided by them being on the frontiers of Gaul whereas the Armorici are not and so does have  conformity with Procopius to its advantage.


That may or may not be, but if the Arborychi are indeed Armorici there is a problem for those using them to provide the LRFA and that is that they also appear as allies in the army listed for Aetius at Chalons.
This is the list that Jordanes gives;
'warriors from everywhere to meet them on equal terms. Now these were his auxiliaries: Franks, Sarmatians, Armoricians, Liticians, Burgundians, Saxons, Riparians, Olibriones (once Romans soldiers and now the flower of the allied forces), and some other Celtic or German tribes. (192) '

I have said before that, if there were this Gallic LRFA that descends from troops available in the Notitia, then it should join Aetius and we should hear of it resisting Attila in its homeland. However, Armoricans that are listed as joining Aetius as allies cannot be a LRFA, they are clearly another contingent of the type of federates, laeti, limitanei and allies that join the coalition against the invader.
So , if the Arborichi are not the German tribe of the Bructeri, but  are Armorici then they are Gallo Romans like the Arverni , who have their own locally raised buccellary and town garrison forces and local militias based upon fortified towns are just the sort of challenge that might take the Franks ten years to subdue.
Further, whoever the Olibriones are they are the flower of the allied force and they were Once Roman soldiers. If anyone is a candidate to be the Ancestors of those wearing Roman costumes in Procopius it is these Olibriones who are, even in 452, former Roman soldiers, so not the elusive Late Roman Field Army.

Roy

[aligern]

Sorry Justin, but the patchwork army case does not rest upon discarding the passage from Procopius, it merely means that there were very few of these decayed Roman troops, not an army of them. If they have survived  60 years from the collapse of Syagrius then somebody is feeding them, most likely the towns whose garrisons they provide. Are we to believe that within the Merovingian realm a large force of tax paid troops  is still being maintained in units that is not in garrisons??
Roy