The Empire is dead, long live the army

[rodge]

Thanks Justin.
Well as I am not a Latin scholar I can't really add to this mini debate.
I'll put it on pause if I may?

[Duncan Head]

The problem is that Eugippius' turmae militares, "turmae of soldiers", rather suggests that he is not using the term in a technical sense.

Assuming Eugippus understood that a miles was meant to be a footsoldier and not just an armed man - had the distinction become a bit blurred by his time?

I was actually assuming more or less the opposite of that - "soldiers", not "footsoldiers". And actually "military turmae" might be more accurate anyway, it's not "turmae militum". But using a generic term like militares to modify what should be a technical term like turmae suggests, to me, a non-technical usage.

As does calling the Batavian cohors a numerus, unless of course their title had changed as their numbers and status fell.

[rodge]

Knowing that I cannot continue the debate with Justin on Latin grammar at present, I went looking for more earthquakes in Gaul (where I thought I may be on more solid ground...ahem...).

The earthquake I mentioned in a previous post...

'From Butler's 'Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and Principal Saints' 1866.
'Saint Mammertus, Archbishop of Vienne, Confessor'

A.D. 477.
Saint Mammertus, archbishop of Vienne in Dauphiné, in which see he succeeded Simplicius in the fifth age, was a prelate renowned in the church, for his sanctity, learning, and miracles. He instituted in his diocese the fasts and supplications called the Rogations, on the following occasion:
Almighty God, to punish the sins of the people, visited them with wars and other public calamities, and awaked them from their spiritual lethargy by the terrors of earthquakes, fires, and ravenous wild beasts, which last were sometimes seen in the very market-places of cities; such was the desolate state to which the country was reduced.'

...puts Ch 19 in 477 some 8-9 years after Ch.18 (the 'His ita gestis' debate that Justin and I have had).

However I think I have found another reference to an earthquake in Hydatius:

'244. In the middle of the city Tolouse in the same days blood erupted out of the earth and flowed for the whole course of the day. / In the second year of the reign of Antimia in the middle of the city Tolouse blood erupted out of the earth and flowed for a whole day, indicating the domination of the Goths removed by the coming of the kingdom of the Franks.'

[I'm afraid do not have the Latin for this quote]

Now IF 'Antimia' is 'Anthemius', who came to the throne in 467  (and I would welcome views on this), then this places the time of the earthquake to 468 (if it is the same earthquake referred to by Gregory):

Ch 19. After this war was waged between the Saxons and the Romans but the Saxons fled and left many of their people to be slain, the Romans pursuing. Their islands were captured and ravaged by the Franks, and many were slain. In the ninth month of that year, there was an earthquake.

Which means Justin could well be correct in his timeline.

Taking Justin's theory as correct, I therefore believe the 8-13 year gap I mentioned between Ch.18 and Ch.19 is actually in Ch.19 itself and sits here:

19. After this war was waged between the Saxons and the Romans but the Saxons fled and left many of their people to be slain, the Romans pursuing. Their islands were captured and ravaged by the Franks, and many were slain. In the ninth month of that year, there was an earthquake.

[The 8-13 year gap is here]

Odoacer made an alliance with Childeric, and they subdued the Alamanni, who had overrun that part of Italy.

Whilst it is not stated anywhere I can find, it seems logical that Childeric is working in concert with Odovacer between the years 476 and 481 (whilst Odovacer is King of Italy).

Otherwise, if Ch19 is a sequential timeline, then Odovacer and Childeric are fighting Alemanni in Italy between 468-480 (to the 14th year of the reign of Euric that begins Ch.20) and I currently cannot understand how this came to be nor can I find any reference to it.

[aligern]

That makes sense Rodg, if Gregory were gathering together references he might just have stuck in the sentence that related the two.
As to the earlier Adovacrius there is just no confirmation at present thatch is Odoacer.

Mind you, if Odoacer is in Gaul in the 460s with plenipotentiary powers then that would rather fly in the face of the Life of St Severinus, or rather we would have to check the sequence and likely date of their first meeting.
Roy

[Duncan Head]

Mind you, if Odoacer is in Gaul in the 460s with plenipotentiary powers then that would rather fly in the face of the Life of St Severinus, or rather we would have to check the sequence and likely date of their first meeting.

Severinus arrived in Noricum "at the time of the death of Attila, king of the Huns", that is c.453. He could have met Odovacar at any time thereafter. Wikipedia cites the PLRE in giving Odovacar a birth-date of 433, so presumably he woudn't be adulescens for very long after 453. Mid- or late-450s for the meeting, then?

[Justin Swanton]

Mind you, if Odoacer is in Gaul in the 460s with plenipotentiary powers then that would rather fly in the face of the Life of St Severinus, or rather we would have to check the sequence and likely date of their first meeting.

Severinus arrived in Noricum "at the time of the death of Attila, king of the Huns", that is c.453. He could have met Odovacar at any time thereafter. Wikipedia cites the PLRE in giving Odovacar a birth-date of 433, so presumably he woudn't be adulescens for very long after 453. Mid- or late-450s for the meeting, then?

Yes, that's what I thought. Gives him a few years to get into the good graces of Ricimer before heading out to northern Gaul in the mid 460's.

Note that even if there is a gap between the Roman-Saxon war and the alliance between Childeric and Odoacer (quite possible as the Latin gives no clue as to the time lapse between the two), that still means that Odovacer and Adovacer must be the same person, otherwise Gregory is plopping a totally unrelated person and event into his account of northern Gaul.

[Patrick Waterson]

Note that even if there is a gap between the Roman-Saxon war and the alliance between Childeric and Odoacer (quite possible as the Latin gives no clue as to the time lapse between the two), that still means that Odovacer and Adovacer must be the same person, otherwise Gregory is plopping a totally unrelated person and event into his account of northern Gaul.

I would go for "strongly suggests" rather than "means," on the basis that we have not quite established identity between the two, as in theory Adovacrius could have perished unremarked in the Saxon war and Odovacrius could then have arrived on the scene as a Ricimer protege charged with subverting the Franks from their Aegidian inclination.

It is looking promising, though. 

One of the hanging participants in this imbroglio is Count Paul.  In Sidonius' Letter I.9, he refers to a Paulus, a nobleman at Rome, who gives him some useful advice about finding friends at court in the aftermath of Ricimer's wedding.  If this is the same Paul, then he would be Ricimer's nominee and replacement to Aegidius' office, and Childeric's elimination of him might conceivably have been at the instigation of Syagrius.  This is obviously conjecture, but is hopefully consistent conjecture.

The question remains: where and how does Adovacrius (whether or not he is Odoacer) plug into the scheme of events around Angers?  Is he a roving raider or a man with an Imperial mission, and if the latter, why is he not cooperating with Paul?  This is what currently puzzles me.

[rodge]

And I would say 'suggests' as this is not nailed down yet

[rodge]

Regarding Count Paul I would suggest that he is acting outside of the Empire.
There have been theories put forward that he was the man that took over from Aegidius; Syargrius would have been c.24 years old when his father died if his birthdate (according to wikipedia) is too be believed (but I have never seen a reference to his birthdate anywhere else) so Count Paul may have acted in the senior role as Syagrius could have been deemed too inexperienced?
On the other hand I have also read that he was Count of Angers and could have been operating under Syagrius' command.
Either way I think he was part of the breakaway administration in Northern Gaul.

[Justin Swanton]

Note that even if there is a gap between the Roman-Saxon war and the alliance between Childeric and Odoacer (quite possible as the Latin gives no clue as to the time lapse between the two), that still means that Odovacer and Adovacer must be the same person, otherwise Gregory is plopping a totally unrelated person and event into his account of northern Gaul.

I would go for "strongly suggests" rather than "means," on the basis that we have not quite established identity between the two, as in theory Adovacrius could have perished unremarked in the Saxon war and Odovacrius could then have arrived on the scene as a Ricimer protege charged with subverting the Franks from their Aegidian inclination.

It is looking promising, though. 

One of the hanging participants in this imbroglio is Count Paul.  In Sidonius' Letter I.9, he refers to a Paulus, a nobleman at Rome, who gives him some useful advice about finding friends at court in the aftermath of Ricimer's wedding.  If this is the same Paul, then he would be Ricimer's nominee and replacement to Aegidius' office, and Childeric's elimination of him might conceivably have been at the instigation of Syagrius.  This is obviously conjecture, but is hopefully consistent conjecture.

The question remains: where and how does Adovacrius (whether or not he is Odoacer) plug into the scheme of events around Angers?  Is he a roving raider or a man with an Imperial mission, and if the latter, why is he not cooperating with Paul?  This is what currently puzzles me.

OK, '[strongly] suggests'. 

If Count Paulus is Ricimer's nominee with the presumed backing of Odoacer, then one wonders why Childeric killed him, having up until then been quite content to be an ally of the incumbent Roman authority. If he was happy enough to fight for Paulus against the Visigoths what would make him change his stance? Syagrius was as yet a nobody - presuming that Sidonius's letter to Syagrius is to this Syagrius, it would appear that he had retired to his villa and was shunning all involvement in public affairs. What could Childeric hope to get out of turning against the Roman authority in northern Gaul? The Roman army in the area was still strong - well able to beat the Saxons without help. Syagrius's subsequent inheritance of his father's mantle shows that Childeric did not in fact get any material advantage.

To me, the only motivation for Childeric suddenly turning against the man he had hitherto fought with side-by-side was the conviction, implanted by Odoacer, that this man did not in fact represent Rome. Presuming that Paulus was one of Aegidius's lieutenants who on Aegidius's death assumed the title of 'Count' even though it had not been granted him by Rome, it becomes clear that his authority was shaky, not helped by the fact that he seems to have suffered military reverses in the region of Bourges. Odoacer has successfully imposed his authority on Angers and the surrounding area. Paulus, quite simply, is politically on his way out. Childeric gets it and switches sides. Killing Paulus puts him in the good graces of Odoacer, Ricimer and the emperor. In this light, it is the natural thing for him to do.

If Adovacrius is just a Saxon war leader then Childeric's action is even more inexplicable. Why kill Paulus at the behest of a man whose force is easily beaten by the Romans, having fought with him against the much more powerful Visigoths? What could Adovacrius, presuming he is a Saxon freebooter, offer Childeric?

Which brings up the question: what would Saxon raiders/conquerors be doing at Angers in the first place? Did they hope to conquer a region of Gaul sandwiched between two powerful nations, either of which could scatter them to the winds? Saxons at that point were acting as mercenaries in Britain, taking advantage of the deep disunity between the British tribes to gradually turn their mercenary status into full independence. But Gaul was a very different proposition. There was nothing weak about the Roman-Frank alliance or the Visigoths. Marching in with a small force of men proclaiming oneself as a conqueror would be tantamount to putting one's head on a block. And indeed when the Saxons did begin to act independently they got the chop.

[Patrick Waterson]

To me, the only motivation for Childeric suddenly turning against the man he had hitherto fought with side-by-side was the conviction, implanted by Odoacer, that this man did not in fact represent Rome. Presuming that Paulus was one of Aegidius's lieutenants who on Aegidius's death assumed the title of 'Count' even though it had not been granted him by Rome, it becomes clear that his authority was shaky, not helped by the fact that he seems to have suffered military reverses in the region of Bourges. Odoacer has successfully imposed his authority on Angers and the surrounding area. Paulus, quite simply, is politically on his way out. Childeric gets it and switches sides. Killing Paulus puts him in the good graces of Odoacer, Ricimer and the emperor. In this light, it is the natural thing for him to do.

This looks like an ingenious and quite plausible reconstruction of motives and events.  The one question I would still have is why Childeric then turns on the Saxons when 'the Romans' (whom we assume to be Syagrius' troops) do so.  Was he double-dealing and changing sides at the drop of a hat, possibly one filled with gold?  And what makes the strongly suggestive Odoacer chum up with him again following the murderous Frankish onslaught on the Saxons?

If Adovacrius is just a Saxon war leader then Childeric's action is even more inexplicable. Why kill Paulus at the behest of a man whose force is easily beaten by the Romans, having fought with him against the much more powerful Visigoths? What could Adovacrius, presuming he is a Saxon freebooter, offer Childeric?

Good point.

Which brings up the question: what would Saxon raiders/conquerors be doing at Angers in the first place? Did they hope to conquer a region of Gaul sandwiched between two powerful nations, either of which could scatter them to the winds? Saxons at that point were acting as mercenaries in Britain, taking advantage of the deep disunity between the British tribes to gradually turn their mercenary status into full independence. But Gaul was a very different proposition. There was nothing weak about the Roman-Frank alliance or the Visigoths. Marching in with a small force of men proclaiming oneself as a conqueror would be tantamount to putting one's head on a block. And indeed when the Saxons did begin to act independently they got the chop.

Logical.  I still wonder exactly what Odoacer's status was in all this.  Do we assume the Saxons rebelled against his leadership following the death of Count Paul?  If so, whom did he have as followers to lead to Italy and make alliance with Childeric to turf out the Alemanni?  (Some have suggested this could be read as 'Alans', and an Alan incursion into Liguria c.468 is noted by Paul the Deacon in Historia Romana XV.1, or so the Wikipedia entry on Alans tells us.)  If we assume he was an officer, perhaps a favoured one, in Ricimer's service, his misadventures with the Saxons might be put down to ill fortune and a new force provided for him.

We then have the problem of whether there were two high-ranking Pauls: one associated with Ricimer, in Rome, and one associated with Aegidius, in Gaul.

Sorry to keep bringing up messy bits, but it would be nice to get them straightened out if possible.

[Justin Swanton]

All right, let me have a go.

The one question I would still have is why Childeric then turns on the Saxons when 'the Romans' (whom we assume to be Syagrius' troops) do so.  Was he double-dealing and changing sides at the drop of a hat, possibly one filled with gold?  And what makes the strongly suggestive Odoacer chum up with him again following the murderous Frankish onslaught on the Saxons?

With Paulus dead, the opposition in Roman Gaul to reintegration with the empire collapses. The military and civil authorities in Roman Gaul renew their allegiance to the emperor and submit to his representative Odoacer. Childeric likewise transfers his federate status to the empire and, concretely, to Odoacer.

The Saxons, for whatever reason, don't like the course events have taken. One can hypothesise that their chieftain (not Odoacer but some unnamed individual) calculates that with Paulus dead the Roman forces will scatter and Childeric return to Tournai, and thinks he has a free hand in consequence. Odoacer, however, has successfully gained the support both of Paulus's troops and Childeric, and proceeds to give the Saxons a hiding. Childeric as federate teaches the Saxons to mind their manners in their homeland and then, lending his warriors to Odoacer, gives the Alamans lessons in etiquette as well.

I still wonder exactly what Odoacer's status was in all this.  Do we assume the Saxons rebelled against his leadership following the death of Count Paul?

Yes.

If so, whom did he have as followers to lead to Italy and make alliance with Childeric to turf out the Alemanni?

He could have made use of Aegidius's military establishment, now at his disposal. Or just relied on Childeric's Franks, sweetened by the imperial paychest. He would hang around long enough to establish imperial authority in Roman Gaul - possibly offering Syagrius governorship in a conciliatory gesture - and then answer summons from Ricimer or the emperor to move on the Alamans.

We then have the problem of whether there were two high-ranking Pauls: one associated with Ricimer, in Rome, and one associated with Aegidius, in Gaul.

Paulus was a common name. It is not unreasonable that they were two individuals.

[aligern]

PLRE is quite interesting on Odovacar.
They buy the idea that he is Gregory's Adovagrius ,occupying Angersafter the battle of Orleans and leading a band of Saxons. They see him in Gaul as an adventurer, with no relation to the Empire.
The Saxons having been defeated by the Romans  and lost their islands to the. Franks.
Their  account falls apart with the description  of Odovacar and Childeric fighting the Allamanni in Italy 
as they either have to have the action take place after 476 to be in Italy  or have it take place  in Gaul. Unfortunately once we start to pick and choose from Gregory's statement the whole passage is in the air.
Given that Odovacar is freelancing in Gaul in the 460s they have him visiting St Severinus in the cave in 469/70 and I have some sympathy with that for my reading of the Life of St Severinus is that he moves to the Danube after Attila's death and then is located in several different towns , building a monastery and running a seminary in one before moving on to a hermit life and that could well take 15 years.
Don't worry abouthim being called adulescens because a man can be calledthat when he is 40! so that could apply to Odovacar up to 473.
Entering Italy in 470 gives us time for his first sensibly recorded action which is in 471/2 when he supported Ricimer in a civil war with Anthemius (John of Antioch).
After that he becomes an imperial bodyguard and then on to the federates revolt of 476.
The most unsatisfactory part of the PLRE entry is the section in Gaul that is dependent upon  Gregory of Tours writing a century later than events. If Odovacar was an imperial officer in Gaul then it would be more than helpful to have that mentioned, otherwise why and how would a prince from the Lower  Danube end up at the mouth of the. Loire recruiting Saxons?


Roy

[Duncan Head]

The PLRE is less confident over the date of Flaccitheus' death, saying only that it must have been some time before 482 - so it could have been before 470, even. In addition chapter VIII starts before Flaccitheus' death and Feletheus' accession - "before the commencement of his reign began to make frequent visits to the saint" - which could easily have meant a date in the 460s.

And aside from the clear implication that the meeting was before Odovacar went to Italy, it would be a little odd to be calling him a "youth", iuvenis (not "adulescens" as I inexplicably cited from memory earlier) in 475 when he'd be over 40 - though it might fit a date as late as the 460s and an Odovacar in his 30s.

Odovacar is unlikely to have been "on his way to Italy" as late as 475 since John of Antioch describes him in Italy with Ricimer in 472. If (as usually assumed) Odovacar's father was the same Edeko who led the Skiri, Odovacar might have moved south only after dad's defeat by the Goths at the Bolia, in or about 468. So perhaps the meeting was in 468 or 469?

[aligern]

Apologies Duncan,, I looked at my post and disagreed with it because the reference to 472 was in my head from earlier and that is a reasonably secure reference to Odovacar.  Ricimer, his boss and Anthemius  are in dispute and Odovacar supports Ricimer. That may well say that he has some status in 472, but then he was a Scirian orince and the Romans were quite attuned to barbarian royalty moving straight in as officers.
Anyway , accepting 472 I cannot have him coming into Italy as late as 475, though a do think Severinus has time for career before meeting Odovacar
A juvenes is between 20 and 40 years... that takes Odivacar up until 473 according to my Lewis and short!
I would be very happy with the meeting being in 468 after the Bolia defeat. It gives an excellent reason for Odovacar to be moving West whilst his brother Hunwulf enters the Eastern Empire. That is the sort of decision  princely brothers might well come to after the game is up following a crushing defeat and I think the Sciri disappear after that.
That leaves us with Gregory and the likelihood that he finds a story about a Saxon leader attacking Angers during a oeriod of warfare along the Loire and appends to it an occasion after 476 when Childeric is incited to attack the Allamani in the rear to reduce pressure on Italy's frontier.
Anyway apologies for removing and replacing my post within minutes, i had not expected anyone to respond so quickly.

Roy