The Empire is dead, long live the army

[Patrick Waterson]

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".

The good bishop may merely be quoting scripture

Does any soldier ever go to war at his own expense? (1 Corinthians 9:7)

Not in this case, methinks: Corinthians has nothing to say about couriers, ambassadors, flamens or controllers of revenue.  The funny thing about Sidonius is one hardly ever catches him quoting scripture.  Greek mythology, yes.  Scripture, very rarely.

In any event, in I Corinthians 9 Paul is trying to justify his conduct after being caught with his fingers in the till, and although one can see a certain applicability to the officials Sidonius is describing, the latter's listing of the various occupations affected does not look like a scriptural quote or even allusion.

[Justin Swanton]

The reference to the' legio bretonum', by the way, does not mention it being in a town, just north of the Loire/Loir. Rather curious if it was a town garrison/militia.

Not really.  I'd expect a mention if it was a peripatetic entity living under canvas but if it was based in a town or towns, it would seem unremarkable.

I mean, its location is 'beyond the Loire' but not in any town in that region, although the author does name  towns elsewhere in his narrative. The impression is that the legion was not quartered in a town, hence was not a town garrison. The text is rather vague, admittedly, and hence not conclusive.

[Jim Webster]

Let us begin by asking: with what did Aetius fight Bonifacius and Bonifacius Aetius?  We can take things from there.

It's a battle I've tried to track down. As far as I can make out the two generals may merely have had their Bucellarii, in the case of Boniface his seem to mainly have been Vandals, and in the case of Aetius, Huns.
Rebuilding the army for Aetius was easy. He just fled to the Huns

Jim

edited to add that Boniface wasn't the first to invade from Africa, see 'The Revolt of Heraclian',
Stewart Irvin Oost Classical Philology, Vol. 61, No. 4. (Oct., 1966), pp. 236-242.

But considering the size of force that Boniface could raise, it is unlikely that regular soldiers, born and serving in Africa for their entire careers, are going to abandon their homes, land, families in the face of constant vandal encroachment. That is one reason why I'm happy with the suggestion that he just brought his Bucellarii

[Jim Webster]

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".

The good bishop may merely be quoting scripture

Does any soldier ever go to war at his own expense? (1 Corinthians 9:7)

Not in this case, methinks: Corinthians has nothing to say about couriers, ambassadors, flamens or controllers of revenue.  The funny thing about Sidonius is one hardly ever catches him quoting scripture.  Greek mythology, yes.  Scripture, very rarely.

In any event, in I Corinthians 9 Paul is trying to justify his conduct after being caught with his fingers in the till, and although one can see a certain applicability to the officials Sidonius is describing, the latter's listing of the various occupations affected does not look like a scriptural quote or even allusion.

Literature of the period has a fine tradition of allusion, and I suggest that this is just another allusion, after all, you can call the dawn rosy-fingered and refer to the sea as wine-dark without intending to describe the weather. Among his contemporaries the allusion would merely be a way of displaying erudition, it's far too slight a thing to build a field army on.
Jim

[Jim Webster]

The reference to the' legio bretonum', by the way, does not mention it being in a town, just north of the Loire/Loir. Rather curious if it was a town garrison/militia.

Not really.  I'd expect a mention if it was a peripatetic entity living under canvas but if it was based in a town or towns, it would seem unremarkable.

I mean, its location is 'beyond the Loire' but not in any town in that region, although the author does name  towns elsewhere in his narrative. The impression is that the legion was not quartered in a town, hence was not a town garrison. The text is rather vague, admittedly, and hence not conclusive.

It may just be that Procopius couldn't remember the name of the town it garrisoned. The vagueness generally gives the impression it's something Procopius might have heard about, perhaps when he was in Italy, but his informant didn't know the name anyway, but merely knew of the existance of such men and the claims they made.

Jim

[Justin Swanton]

The reference to the' legio bretonum', by the way, does not mention it being in a town, just north of the Loire/Loir. Rather curious if it was a town garrison/militia.

Not really.  I'd expect a mention if it was a peripatetic entity living under canvas but if it was based in a town or towns, it would seem unremarkable.

I mean, its location is 'beyond the Loire' but not in any town in that region, although the author does name  towns elsewhere in his narrative. The impression is that the legion was not quartered in a town, hence was not a town garrison. The text is rather vague, admittedly, and hence not conclusive.

It may just be that Procopius couldn't remember the name of the town it garrisoned. The vagueness generally gives the impression it's something Procopius might have heard about, perhaps when he was in Italy, but his informant didn't know the name anyway, but merely knew of the existance of such men and the claims they made.

Jim

The reference to the legio bretonum is from the Vita Sancti Dalmatii, by an unknown author writing in Gaul some time in the middle of the 6th century:

'Naturally, after the realm of the Franks [who were] pious and illustrious and devotees of the Christian religion, had subjugated the city of Rodez (the people themselves conspiring in their [the Franks'] favour), the priest [Dalmas], filled with desire, strove to look upon the presence of the Christian king Theudebert. As the devout one [Dalmas] was tirelessly hurrying to him [Theudebert] in the region beyond-Loire [or: beyond-Loir], it is said he enjoyed an evening's hospitality in a certain place where some sort of Breton [or: Brittonic] legion (so to speak) nearby was stationed [or: was waiting].'

Notice that the legion is stationed near (and not at) the undefined place where Dalmas enjoyed an evening's hospitality. At a first impression it seems to be a fort of some kind.

[Jim Webster]

The reference to the legio bretonum is from the Vita Sancti Dalmatii, by an unknown author writing in Gaul some time in the middle of the 6th century:

'Naturally, after the realm of the Franks [who were] pious and illustrious and devotees of the Christian religion, had subjugated the city of Rodez (the people themselves conspiring in their [the Franks'] favour), the priest [Dalmas], filled with desire, strove to look upon the presence of the Christian king Theudebert. As the devout one [Dalmas] was tirelessly hurrying to him [Theudebert] in the region beyond-Loire [or: beyond-Loir], it is said he enjoyed an evening's hospitality in a certain place where some sort of Breton [or: Brittonic] legion (so to speak) nearby was stationed [or: was waiting].'

Notice that the legion is stationed near (and not at) the undefined place where Dalmas enjoyed an evening's hospitality. At a first impression it seems to be a fort of some kind.

It could be a detachment of a town militia that was covering a crossing place within the town's territory, as you say, it might be a fort, or a fortified dwelling of some sort) it could even be the town itself.
But we needn't be talking of more than a handful of men, remember in the Late Empire units were often split up in penny packets guarding a number of places.

Jim

[Erpingham]

I mean, its location is 'beyond the Loire' but not in any town in that region, although the author does name  towns elsewhere in his narrative. The impression is that the legion was not quartered in a town, hence was not a town garrison. The text is rather vague, admittedly, and hence not conclusive.

Apologies Justin that I misunderstood you.  I think you yourself have the answer, re-reading the piece as you quoted it suggests uncertainty on the author's part.  He doesn't feel confident in his details and can only commit to an area in which this happened, rather than knowing the exact place.  I don't think we can conclude that the "legion" doesn't have a base from it.  In fact, wouldn't it be an odd unit not to have a base?  The most likely base for it, as I understand the economic and political geography, would be a town, though as Jim says, it could easily have detachments securing strategic points (whatever one judges them to be).

[Patrick Waterson]

It could be a detachment of a town militia that was covering a crossing place within the town's territory, as you say, it might be a fort, or a fortified dwelling of some sort) it could even be the town itself.
But we needn't be talking of more than a handful of men, remember in the Late Empire units were often split up in penny packets guarding a number of places.

It is the designation rather than the order of battle which stands out, and similarly with Procopius' Arborychi.

When dealing with these single-source mentions, there are always plenty of casual explanations for the unusual phenomenon, but what for me stands out is the fact that the phenomenon attracted the special notice of the author in the first place.  Procopius was undoubtedly familiar with city militias which had their own standards, but he takes the time to comment upon the curious fellows in northern Gaul who preserved Roman military traditions, or what Procopius understood to be such.  This deserves reflection on our part.

Jim, I checked out Ammianus XXIII.5.8 and yes, Julian is referred to as a king (you were right) though admittedly only in the sense of an omen foretelling doom for someone in high places:

Obitus enim regis portendebatur, sed cuius, erat incertum.

(for the death of a king was foretold, but of which king was uncertain)

Let us begin by asking: with what did Aetius fight Bonifacius and Bonifacius Aetius?  We can take things from there.

It's a battle I've tried to track down. As far as I can make out the two generals may merely have had their Bucellarii, in the case of Boniface his seem to mainly have been Vandals, and in the case of Aetius, Huns.
Rebuilding the army for Aetius was easy. He just fled to the Huns

Jim

edited to add that Boniface wasn't the first to invade from Africa, see 'The Revolt of Heraclian',
Stewart Irvin Oost Classical Philology, Vol. 61, No. 4. (Oct., 1966), pp. 236-242.

But considering the size of force that Boniface could raise, it is unlikely that regular soldiers, born and serving in Africa for their entire careers, are going to abandon their homes, land, families in the face of constant vandal encroachment. That is one reason why I'm happy with the suggestion that he just brought his Bucellarii

Bonifacius may well have brought only his bucellarii from Africa, but prior to the battle he had been appointed Magister Militum and was in a position to collect and use the Army of Italy.  It is inconceivable that he did not do so.

Literature of the period has a fine tradition of allusion, and I suggest that this is just another allusion, after all, you can call the dawn rosy-fingered and refer to the sea as wine-dark without intending to describe the weather. Among his contemporaries the allusion would merely be a way of displaying erudition, it's far too slight a thing to build a field army on.

Sidonius does use literary allusion, but when he does so it is evident, e.g. Letter V.7.5:

"Let them but scent from afar a rusty purse, and you will see them fix on it the eyes of Argus, Briareus' hands, the Sphinx's claws; they will bring into play the perjuries of Laomedon, the subtleties of Ulysses, Sinon's wiles; they will stick to it with the staunchness of Polymestor and the loyalty of a Pygmalion."

When he writes about soldiers and pay he means soldiers and pay.

[Patrick Waterson]

It may be time to review this thread and see if we can make any further progress or if we are falling into preconceived ruts that will just run in circles.

The issues seem to be:

Did Syagrius have a regular army in AD 486?

Did the Western Empire or any part of it have such an army in whole or in part after AD 429?

I think we have demonstrated that what remained of the Western Empire had an ongoing imperial administrative system right up to AD 475.  The point of contention here seems to be whether the Domain of Soissons also had such a system.

Regarding the Arborychi of Procopius, these seem to remain a phenomenon without a wholly satisfactory explanation, although some have been offered.

I suggest we wind the topic down for a few days to give those of us who are researching material a chance to put it all together, then combine what we have and see what (if anything) emerges.  This may be more fruitful than trying to impose an interpretation ab initio, whether mine or anyone else's.

In theory this will let us look at the subject with a clean slate.

Feel free to post any replies to may last post first.

[aligern]

This element of any part of the W Empire having a regular army has rather crept in.
There is little doubt that there are regular Roman troops in Italy up to 476 and there may be a field army. What is in doubt for Gaul is whether there is a field army of substantial numbers up to the late 400s . There may well be frontier troops that survive in diminished form and in the new privatised world, but I would not call them, nor the buccellarii of a leader a 'regular Roman field army'

So I wonder if the question should be redrawn?
I also doubt that what remained of the Western Empire had an ongoing imperial administrative system. Some would regard the Visigoth kingdom and Burgundy as part of the W empire then, some not and parts of Gaul and Spain may well be in the Empire faute de mieux, but not running the imperial tax system. What is the status of the Bretons or those tracts of Spain neither Sueve nor Goth dominated?

[Justin Swanton]

Patrick's idea is excellent. A number of posters have contributed interesting primary source material and I think we are gradually getting a clearer impression of the period. We need everything that can be found put on the table and carefully compared - in the original language if possible. Plus anything archaeology and numismatology can yield.

I promised earlier to take a closer look at the solidi distribution in Armorica in the latter half of the 5th century and see to what extent it ties up with a paid military. I have the stuff ready so if no-one minds I might as well post it now.

Here is an extract from the article that accompanied the solidi distribution maps I posted earlier. This is my translation from the original French: The italics are mine.

The 4th and 5th centuries: military gold or a general circulation? The role of gold in economic and social life changed under Constantine. From 311 the solidus, a 1/72 pounds replaces the aureus at 1/60 pounds as the base of the monetary system. Reece (1975, p 644) suggested that the cycle of gold in the 4th and 5th centuries began and ended outside the province, and could not be linked to economic prosperity or public demand, but to the needs of the army. P. Gaillou (1980 a, p 257-258) cautiously put forward an ingenious hypothesis according to which the solidi of the 4th and 5th centuries were evidence of civil or military functionaries in the first or second degree but also of soldier-peasant colonists installed along strategic routes. It is true that the annual coefficient which increased in the period 364-378 (1.07) could correspond to the establishment or reorganisation, in the 370's (or between 370 -395), of the Tractus Armoricanus et Nervicanus of which the Notitia Dignitatum gives us the picture. However, this correlation between solidi and points of defence still needs to be confirmed. In fact, the maps showing distribution in the 4th and 5th centuries are not radically different from those of the first three centuries. The primary zones of diffusion of solidi (north of the peninsula, the namneto-venete zone, the gulf of Pictons, Cotentin) are already primary zones in the first century. Furthermore, of the various forts of the Tractus (Nantes, Vannes, Brest, Alet, Avanches, Coutances), only Nantes and the area around Vannes have yielded solidi. It is the same for the garrisons of Letes (Rennes, Le Mans, Coutances...) where Bayeux (cf addendum) constitutes the exception. Among the other possible garrisons, some have yielded gold coins: A Diocletian at Cesson (No. 168), a Maximus at Saint Pol-de-Leon (No. 150), a Constantine II on the road leading to Trouguer in Cleden-Cap-Sizun (No. 126), but these consist precisely of sites where the presence of fortifications is in doubt (Galliou, 1980 a, p 243-245). Furthermore, the most obvious site of Coz-Yaudet in Ploulec'h has shown no trace of gold coins. These negative remarks, indeed, are not conclusive and I admit that I don't have a substitution hypothesis other than that of a 'normal' level of provisioning under the Antonines or during the period of the Gallo-roman empire. I am convinced that the defence of Armorica in the broad sense (cost of fortifications, maintainence of a defensive girdle, donatives for the troops) favoured the use of money, but the role of this 'military' gold is not determinable, even if I agree with P. Galliou in suggesting that it is most likely more important than in the preceding centuries.

To put it in plain English, the author cannot see any better hypothesis to explain the coins than the normal system of annonia and other military payments as took place in previous centuries. The absence of coins at Coz Yaudet is not surprising, given that the place was continuously occupied.

Here is a map showing the distribution of solidi and tremissi from the emperors Libius Severus, Julius Nepos and Zenon, i.e. the period 461 - 491. The coins are superimposed on a map showing the borders between Roman Gaul, the Bretons and the Visigoths.

There are two things to notice. First the concentration of solidi along the Loire. This is exactly the place one would expect to find Procopius's 'other Roman soldiers' who guarded this frontier against their Arian enemies, the Visigoths to the south.

Secondly, the curious concentration in a small region in the centre-north of the Breton peninsula. Two of the coins were discovered at Castel Kerandroat, in Plésidy, a small Roman fort in which a coin of Vespasian was also discovered.

This is also the area in which the Roman fort of Le Yaudet is located, which recent archeological research shows to have been continuously occupied during the 5th century and into the 6th, the nature of this occupation being most probably military. I have attached a pdf of an article on the excavations of 1991-2002. Unfortunately I don't have the internet link. Besides a siliqua of Arcadius, the site yielded:

a fine crossbow brooch (no. 1.40) usually dated to the period c.330–410, a buckle pin (no. 1.41) and the loop of a buckle (no. 1.42), both of late Roman type, and an openwork phalera (no. 1.43) dated to the late third or fourth century. Other datable material includes a late Roman cylindrical wound glass bead (no. 6.39), the neck of a glass bottle or flask of a type dated in northern France to the mid-fifth to mid-sixth century, and four body sherds of an amphora or amphorae imported from the east Mediterranean in the late fifth or early sixth century. The remainder of the material culture is limited to a restricted range of coarse pottery, a bone gouge and a few stone weights and a stone spindle whorl. Although the amount of material that can confidently be assigned to this elusive period is not great, given the extensive destruction caused by medieval and later ploughing and the fact that the period was largely aceramic, the collection is all the more remarkable. It reflects a high status occupation throughout the period and a probable military presence, at least in the early stages.

We are looking a Roman military presence in Brittany which the solidi and tremisses indicate continued during the second half of the 5th century, possibly with the intention of keeping the peninsula subordinate, even if it was not all under direct Roman control.

To sum up, the evidence indicates that paid and professional Roman troops in the Armorica area throughout the 5th century is at least likely.

[Erpingham]

Nice to see some archaeology making an appearance

Like most archaeological material, it is , of course, open to interpretation.  This is well summed up in the abstract of the distribution paper.  What I'm entirely missing is a reference to a late roman field army.  The army mentioned in the abstract seems to be a garrison of militia, the functional descendants of limitanei, which is what the traditional (if we can talk about such) view would expect.

On the second, Breton, note, it refers to some kind of military presence early in the period late 4th to early sixth century.  It sounds like the finds for this period are unstratified too, so it would be difficult to get to a more accurate date.  I know virtually nothing about Brittany at this point, except it traditionally fills up with British refugees.  How radical is it to discover a Roman military presence in the early-mid fifth century?

[rodge]

As we are not in response mode for a while I will hang fire on any comment bar a direct quote from the pdf which is in the conclusion of the section 'The resettlement: from Armorica to Brittany: AD 380–550' and refers specifically to Le Yaudet and then the broader regions:

'Perhaps in this we are seeing, dimly reflected, groups of foederatae, some of British origin, settling among the indigenous population to provide a semblance of order as the old social fabric crumbled.
In this may lie the beginning of the British immigration which was to continue for more than a century transforming Armorica to Brittany.'


and your conclusion

'To sum up, the evidence indicates that paid and professional Roman troops in the Armorica area throughout the 5th century is at least likely'

I may be wrong but I don't think that there is a doubt about some 'Roman' troops being present Justin, nor that they were paid.
It's
a) just how many troops
b) what kind of 'Roman' troops were they (i.e. if foederati did they carry on Roman military customs; so were they once comitatenses type units and are these the troops the passers-on of on tradition/standards etc that Procopius details; were they part of a cohesive Field Army etc.)
c) how good they were
d) and who were their paymasters (administration or private funding).

And thank you, that is a really interesting doc.

[aligern]

Hi Justin, did the author, or has anyone, got a map that shows the distribution of such gold coins for the whole of Gaul or for the Western Empire?  I hate asking questions such as that, but  it would help to verify whether the distribution told us anything about the military presence or was down to some other cause.
Roy