The Empire is dead, long live the army

[Justin Swanton]

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.

It's also quite possible that Odoacer - presuming he is this Odivacar - offers his services to Ricimer whilst he still has something respectable to be prince of, i.e. before the defeat at Bolia. This would be line with barbarian practice. Odivacar's appeal to Ricimir would be as an important leader in a flourishing barbarian tribe, not as a refugee of a tribe that has been smashed in battle and is about to disappear from history. By the time of Bolia he has shown himself to be a capable and loyal subordinate so Ricimer keeps him.

'Iuvenis' in my dictionary is from 17 to 45, the midpoint being 31 (if you like numbers). The odds are then good that Odoacer met St Severinus before the events of 464-5.

[aligern]

I don't think being prince of something significant is not the qualifier for getting a good job in the Roman structure.  The Romans had a good idea of what being a Germanic prince meant and it clearly was not only related to a particular tribe. If you are a barbarian royal then you might have only a few followers, but you would be recieved as a royal and others would expect to be commanded by you. Leaders such as Stilico , Aspar, Ricimer, Sarus are not leading their tribe or, as far as is known, relating to their tribe or exercising any power over it.  they are just high status individuals, especially in the military sphere.

Roy

[Justin Swanton]

This thread seems to be gradually expanding into a reconstruction of the history of the late Roman empire with particular reference to Gaul. A fascinating subject (don't you just love those Latin grammatical nuances in Gregory?) but perhaps deserving a separate thread.

On the subject of Odoacer one at least sees what appears to be a regular Roman army serving a Roman administration that remains intact through a change of leadership, from Aegidius to Paulus to Odoacer (or some unnamed individual) to Syagrius. This army is well able to beat a strong force of Saxons who, whatever their precise status at Angers might be, were at least capable fighters. The same army however needs the help of Frankish (and possibly Briton/Breton) federates to take on the Visigoths. I think the guesstimate of +/- 10 000 professional troops looks about right.

[Justin Swanton]

On the subject of Gregory's Adovacrius-Odovacrius, one needs to take note of how just bad his spelling is, especially of personal names.

Here is how he spells Euric in Chap. 20:

20. De Victorio duce. Eoricus autem Gothorum rex Victorium ducem super septem civitatis praeposuit anno XIIII, regni sui.

And here is how he spells it just 5 chapters later:

25. De Euvarege persecutore. Huius temporis et Euarix rex Gothorum, excidens Hispanum limitem, gravem in Galliis super christianis intulit persecutionem.

Given the pig's breakfast Gregory makes of Euric's name, the only thing one can conclude about his spelling of Odoacer is that it is remarkably consistent.

[Patrick Waterson]

One feature of the story is the way the Armoricans in the 430s and then in the 440s removed themselves from imperial rule: they seem to have taken exception to the pervasive bureaucracy, the one-size-fits-all legislation, the level of monetary contributions, the single currency and uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe.  So they left.  This probably had more impact on the administration and revenues of northern Gaul under Aetius and Aegidius than did the loss of provinces further afield, but the Roman administration in northern Gaul does seem to have survived.

[Imperial Dave]

they seem to have taken exception to the pervasive bureaucracy, the one-size-fits-all legislation, the level of monetary contributions, the single currency and uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe.

sounds mightily familiar today

[aligern]

Hmmmm what do we mean by the Roman administrative system?

Roy

[aligern]

I am coming to agree with you Justin, that Gregory of Tours is very flaky and that his writings on the Vth century should not be trusted. It appears that he is taking from different sources and importing their spellings and their errors without really sorting out the consistent story behind the entries.
Jordanes is as bad , for example having a story of the Visigoth  Thorismud fight Attila again after Chalons. We would have to have real corroboration before relying upon either for a definitive statement about a putative Roman army in Northern Gaul, especially as neither actually makes sych a statement.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

Hmmmm what do we mean by the Roman administrative system?

Roy

"These are they who grudge quiet folks their peace, the soldier his pay, the courier his fare, the merchant his market, the ambassador his gifts, the farmer of tolls his dues, the provincial his farm, the municipality its flamen's dignity, the controllers of revenue their weights, the receivers their measures, the registrars their salary, the accountants their fees, the bodyguards their presents, towns their truces, taxgatherers their taxes, the clergy the respect men pay them, the nobles their lineage, superiors their seats in council, equals equality, the official his jurisdiction, the ex-official his distinctions, scholars their schools, masters their stipends, and finished pupils their accomplishments." - Sidonius, Letters, V.7.3

"I know that your brother's honours delight you no less than my own; considering his years, he has attained this one very early; considering his deserts, very late. For he earned the dignity he is now to receive long ago, by service in the field and not by purchase; and though only a private citizen, poured into the treasury no mere contribution, but sums like spoils of war. [2] Julius Nepos, true Emperor in character no less than prowess, has done nobly in keeping the pledged word of his predecessor Anthemius that the labours of your brother should be recognized; his action is all the more laudable for the promptitude with which he has fulfilled a promise reiterated so often by another. In future the best men in the State will feel able, nay, rather, will feel bound, to spend their strength with the utmost ardour for the commonweal, assured that even should the prince who promised die, the Empire itself will be responsible, and pay the debt due to their devotion and self-sacrifice." - ibid. V.16.1-2

"... there was not a word about officials or taxes, not an informer among us to betray" - ibid. V.17.5

"It has passed over your administration of the Gauls when they were still at their greatest extent. It has been silent on the efficacy of your measures against Attila the enemy on the Rhine and Thorismond the guest of the Rhone, and on your support of Aetius the Liberator of the Loire. It has not related the dragging of your chariot by cheering provincials, whose fervent applause proclaimed their gratitude for the prudence and the foresight with which you handled the reins of power; since you ruled the Gauls with such wisdom that the exhausted proprietor was relieved from the unbearable yoke of taxes. It passed over the address with which you influenced the savage Gothic king by a language blending grace with gravity and astuteness, a language unfamiliar in his ears, causing him to withdraw from the gates of Arles by a banquet, where Aetius could not have succeeded by force of arms." - ibid. VII.12.3

[Patrick Waterson]

I am coming to agree with you Justin, that Gregory of Tours is very flaky and that his writings on the Vth century should not be trusted.

I am not sure that is quite what Justin meant. 

To me, Gregory of Tours seems to be like the proverbial curate's egg: good in parts.  Sadly he is our principal source for certain key events so we have to make the best we can of him.  Patient extrapolation seems to be filling out the picture and in this case largely vindicating him (to my surprise).

He is nevertheless not a Wellington's egg, consumed and then described as 'quite rotten'.

[Justin Swanton]

I am coming to agree with you Justin, that Gregory of Tours is very flaky and that his writings on the Vth century should not be trusted. It appears that he is taking from different sources and importing their spellings and their errors without really sorting out the consistent story behind the entries.
Jordanes is as bad , for example having a story of the Visigoth  Thorismud fight Attila again after Chalons. We would have to have real corroboration before relying upon either for a definitive statement about a putative Roman army in Northern Gaul, especially as neither actually makes sych a statement.
Roy

I get the impression rather that Gregory's Latin spelling can at times be atrocious and that he clearly copies different versions of personal names from different sources without deciding which version is correct. Hence I feel it a mistake to conclude too much from his different variants of Odoacer's name.

Nonetheless in what regards the first Visigothic war of the 460's it seems quite possible to draw a coherent and reasonable picture from his account. He was after all as close to the events as we are to the First World War.

I like Patrick's approach of doing one's best to make sense of a primary source, discarding it only when it is clearly proven to be wrong (as opposed to being affirmed to be wrong by a contemporary trendy opinion).

[Erpingham]

I like Patrick's approach of doing one's best to make sense of a primary source, discarding it only when it is clearly proven to be wrong (as opposed to being affirmed to be wrong by a contemporary trendy opinion).

A weakness of this approach though is it can lead to a a lack of critical analysis of primary sources.  Well entrenched academic reviews can be wrong but they can reflect a wider study of a subject that assesses the value of that source in context.  That context should include a wide range of comparisons in different disciplines; other sources, official documents, archaeology, palaeogeography, experimental archaeology even analogy.  The work of academics can digest these for us - what Roy has referred to a "standing on the shoulders of giants approach", building on past work.  So yes, come to sources fresh and with respect but also respect the work others have done and weigh their conclusions carefully.

[Justin Swanton]

One feature of the story is the way the Armoricans in the 430s and then in the 440s removed themselves from imperial rule: they seem to have taken exception to the pervasive bureaucracy, the one-size-fits-all legislation, the level of monetary contributions, the single currency and uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe.  So they left.  This probably had more impact on the administration and revenues of northern Gaul under Aetius and Aegidius than did the loss of provinces further afield, but the Roman administration in northern Gaul does seem to have survived.

It might be an idea to have another look at the Armoricans from the perspective of the Armoriciani serving as federates of Aetius at Chalons, and the Arborychi who begin to fight for the  Romans in the 460's.

Who were the Armoriciani/Arborychi? They were not barbarians or even Bretons as Procopius makes clear:

Next to these [the Franks] lived the Arborychi, who, together with all the rest of Gaul, and, indeed, Spain also, were subjects of the Romans from of old.

They were clearly Gallo-romans, living in the area roughly bordered by the Loire and the Seine. By the the 5th century practically all Gallo-romans lived on the huge country estates (latifundia) owned by the powerful Gallo-roman senatorial class. They were not free peasants, but tenants, working land that was not theirs and giving a portion to their landlords as rent. The idea of them rising up of their own accord in a kind of popular movement to fight for the Roman authorities is, quite simply, absurd. Yet this apparently is what happened:

By that time it so happened that the Arborychi had become soldiers of the Romans.... But the Arborychi proved their valour and loyalty to the Romans and shewed themselves brave men in this war[/i][/b].

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that the men who controlled the livelihood of the Armoricans were the same men who used them to fight for the Roman cause - in other words the Gallo-roman aristocracy. We have an example of this in Ecdicius, who raises a small army (rather more than 18 men!) to fight the Visigoths. It is unlikely that Ecdicius's example was unique, and everything indicates that his colleagues in northern Gaul were doing the same thing as a matter of course. Even granted a survival of the Roman infrastructure and economy in Gaul in the 5th century, no-one argues that the Empire could no longer maintain the army at its former size. It would be natural to devolve the military burden onto those who could afford to pay for it. This would explain the Olibriones at Chalons. They were a part of the regular military establishment that had been privatised by wealthy landowners, and now served as Auxilia rather than part of the standing army.

The Armoricans then were military units, formed, equipped and paid/maintained by Gallo-roman notables. They were active before Chalons since Aetius can call on them instantly for the battle. This goes well with the lack of country villas in northern Gaul in the 5th century. The Gallo-roman nobility in that region did not have the time, cash or inclination to idle around in magnificent country estates.

What were the Armorican units like? If the Olibriones were the 'flower of the Auxilia' then the Armoriciani of Chalons would not be quite as good - though it seems they were certainly good enough by the time one reaches Clovis. They would look like Roman troops: the Gallo-roman nobility - immensely proud of their Roman heritage - in training them would follow the Roman military model (a few Olibriones would have come in handy at this point).

That some of these Armorican forces might decide that doing without Roman authority was a better course than fighting for it was inevitable given the changing political situation, and it is likely that there were several switches of loyalty through the 5th century. My reconstruction of Syagrius's fall has the Arborychi dispensing with him after his defeat by Clovis, leaving him no choice but to flee to the Visigoths.

[rodge]

I thought another view on the  'His ita gestis' interpretation may be of use; in such circumstances as we face establishing that one cannot look so closely at Gregory as to make individual words the arbiter of major meanings is, in itself, useful:

'Firstly an ablative absolute does not have to convey a direct temporal link; secondly here it is most likely temporal not causative as Justin implies.
'ita' – 'in this way', does refer back in time since its sandwiched in the absolute, but it the sense of his 'gestis' that is interesting.
It is not 'after these things were done', gero has more of a sense of 'bringing about' 'carrying' 'spending (effort/time'- quite vague.
So if there was a direct close link why would Gregory not go for a more solid 'his ita factis'.
In short it is not a solid linking phrase as it does not refer to anything specific.

'Gero', especially in later Roman authors – and therefore in those who wrote up the old testament in Latin (see http://www.biblestudytools.com/esther/2-1-compare.html) also conveys a sense of spending or passing time. The greek phrase they translated: μετα τους λογους means literally 'after these words/speech/subject matter/account/story.' So by we know it is a temporal phrase and therefore can assume this 'gestis' is also.

'His' could also be stretched to 'His (tempestibus)' if we're reading 'gestis' as referring to passage of time. Other Latin authors have used 'His tempestibus' in ablative absolutes to denote passage of time.

All in all this phrase is very unspecific, could there be missing intervening chapters?

If not I would say there could well be a quite significant passage of time between the chapters, or a short passage of time or some other event(s).
So my translation would read, 'In this way after these things were passed, war was waged between the Saxons and Romans' / in this way after a while... / A time after this..'

Through a glass darkly then gents.....

[Justin Swanton]

I like Patrick's approach of doing one's best to make sense of a primary source, discarding it only when it is clearly proven to be wrong (as opposed to being affirmed to be wrong by a contemporary trendy opinion).

A weakness of this approach though is it can lead to a a lack of critical analysis of primary sources.  Well entrenched academic reviews can be wrong but they can reflect a wider study of a subject that assesses the value of that source in context.  That context should include a wide range of comparisons in different disciplines; other sources, official documents, archaeology, palaeogeography, experimental archaeology even analogy.  The work of academics can digest these for us - what Roy has referred to a "standing on the shoulders of giants approach", building on past work.  So yes, come to sources fresh and with respect but also respect the work others have done and weigh their conclusions carefully.

This is certainly true. The point though is that about 90% of our understanding of the past comes from written primary sources. A discipline like archaeology confirms (or refutes) these sources but adds relatively little historical detail of its own - or so I understand it, not being a historian myself. (by 'detail' I mean an understanding of the events and people. One can of course get plenty of detail about things like the layout of buildings, etc.) Hence the need when doing history to look at the primary sources, in the original language if possible, and be very slow to reject them.

A good example - looked at a few years back on the Lost Battles group - is the size of Achaemenid and early Carthaginian armies as given by the primary sources. All primary sources affirm huge numbers for these armies; contemporary academic fashion just discounts them and makes up smaller numbers of its own. But is this good history? A topic for another thread....