Arthur's dykes

[Erpingham]

My knowledge of Late Roman systems is mainly through their impact on early medieval ones, rather than direct.  Late Roman Empire moved more to a tax-in-kind system for supporting the army, including a levy of conscripts based on an assessment at civitas level.  The wealth of the civitas included those large land-owners locally, who were expected to make contributions from among their tenants.  This burden varied in number of men required and was not levied every year - sometimes it was commuted to a cash payment.  How well this worked in practice I don't know - it may have depended on how much central authority could make it self felt.  What it did do was present the civitates with an acknowledged set of military manpower obligations for local landowners which, if left to look to their own defences, might have come in handy.

I don't think the soldiers' sons legislation is part of this but a different obligation (I think there were other professions which had this hereditary obligation too).  Theoretically, soldiers sons were marched off and could be posted anywhere but, again, this would depend on the strength of central authority - if families stayed around their limitanei bases, enforcement locally may have been the rule.  If people left the area, there was limited ability to track them and enforce this without active higher authorities.   

I find the discussion interesting in trying to work out what the autonomous Britannia was like after the traditional 410 AD end point we were taught in school.  It seems fairly straightforward to believe that, for decades, both the British civitates and the Empire expected things to return to normal (whatever normal was in the late Empire of the west).  There were fairly stable sets of relationships between civitates and foederates and relics of army.   I do struggle a bit with the idea of a resurgent army though - I think it takes a bit more than some dykes surveyed in Roman feet to suggest a revitalised, fully effective force.  The archaeology (which is far less than you'd really want) suggests the reconfiguring of old forts into fortified settlements.  These would be useful locally, perhaps discouraging raids and unregulated migration but were not the regular army of old.  How did the civitates defend themselves?  Militias?  Estate militias and bodyguards/comitati of major landowners?  Local foederate agreements or alliances with foreign settlers?

[Anton]

Very good questions.

How did the big estates survive the Martinian revolution?  How did they survive the primacy of the civates?  Did their owners lead the transition or had they been swept aside with a share out of their assets to the victors.  What happened to all that imperial real estate?

I can think of two examples that might give us a clue.  The Irish foederati in Dyfed do not displace the local tribal aristocracy but are given imperial land.  Later, the Powys dynasty turned over former Roman military land to the Church creating one of the wonders of Western Christendom according to Bede.

Quite suddenly assets are in play and have to be allocated and protected.

[Imperial Dave]

one element I am not sure about is the split of Foederati 'settled' by Imperial or Post Imperial authorities and the Foederati that were recognised as such (defacto) after they migrated onto the British Isles under their own steam. Bit of a moving feast but I would assume there would be a split of some sort. What interaction there was between such groups, one can only imagine.

[Anton]

I'd think so too.  No reason to think that the original foederati wouldn't have upheld their foedus for as long as it was beneficial.

[Imperial Dave]

in times of peace....its a good gig, being billeted and supported by the locals and also as time went on, more and more recognised as the military of the isles

[aligern]

Its likely that, as with  the Franks in North Gaul, the foederati were given land in return for service. There was thus every incentive for them to behave and to continue to have legal rights to their farms. I sort of doubt that the foederati had any overarching organisation that linked them, or any multi group leadership .

[Patrick Waterson]

Its likely that, as with  the Franks in North Gaul, the foederati were given land in return for service.

Would that technically make them laeti rather than foederati?  Not sure how useful this question is, given that the important part is their attachment to their land and by extension whoever settled them there.

[Jim Webster]

Its likely that, as with  the Franks in North Gaul, the foederati were given land in return for service.

Would that technically make them laeti rather than foederati?  Not sure how useful this question is, given that the important part is their attachment to their land and by extension whoever settled them there.

I wonder if Laeti actually farmed the land (because a lot of them were settled in areas where the peasantry had run off etc) and their children and some spare men were destined for the army.)
Whereas Foederati were soldiers supported by the peasantry who farmed the land for them, allowing them to be full time soldiers.
Doubtless both lots faded into each other in the middle

Jim

[Imperial Dave]

agreed Jim,

in the early 5th century, 'traditional' roles and conditions would probably have been the norm and as time (and the central authority declines) goes on, there would have been a blurring of the lines as you point out.

[Erpingham]

agreed Jim,

in the early 5th century, 'traditional' roles and conditions would probably have been the norm and as time (and the central authority declines) goes on, there would have been a blurring of the lines as you point out.

And, of course, a number of scenarios about what could go wrong.  A legal title to land needs an enforceable legal system.  While everyone thinks the situation is a temporary blip and normal service will be resumed, this is OK.  Once a more localised approach takes hold, with perhaps more "might is right" approaches breaking out, a sensible foederate might look to defending his own, making alliances and then moving on to "consolidating" by taking over what is someone else's.  We might also wonder about the relationship of the "old" settlement of Imperial foederates as against later, locally brokered ones.  Are they going to be natural allies or rivals?

[Jim Webster]

agreed Jim,

in the early 5th century, 'traditional' roles and conditions would probably have been the norm and as time (and the central authority declines) goes on, there would have been a blurring of the lines as you point out.

And, of course, a number of scenarios about what could go wrong.  A legal title to land needs an enforceable legal system.  While everyone thinks the situation is a temporary blip and normal service will be resumed, this is OK.  Once a more localised approach takes hold, with perhaps more "might is right" approaches breaking out, a sensible foederate might look to defending his own, making alliances and then moving on to "consolidating" by taking over what is someone else's.  We might also wonder about the relationship of the "old" settlement of Imperial foederates as against later, locally brokered ones.  Are they going to be natural allies or rivals?

The thing about 'old' and 'new' foederate is that they might not even speak the same language.
Also remember that when things start to break down, direct ownership of land becomes much more important, so that the foederati who hold land 'from the emperor' and are armed and organised have a damned good claim to what they're sitting on.
If anything, they are going to be courted by neighbours, local landowners, would-be warlords etc. The first part of the negotiation would be guaranteeing that the foederati's land was theirs (if only because you probably had no way of throwing them off)

[Imperial Dave]

hence.....going back to the OP....that polities based around civitates possibly became more and more jealous of guarding their 'patch' be it with militia, Foederati, Laeti or recently hired outsiders. This could be the start of the dyke building 'explosion' in the SE which originated in local rivalries rather than purely racial lines

[Nick Harbud]

The thing about 'old' and 'new' foederate is that they might not even speak the same language.

Shades of Joe Haldeman's Forever War......

[Jim Webster]

hence.....going back to the OP....that polities based around civitates possibly became more and more jealous of guarding their 'patch' be it with militia, Foederati, Laeti or recently hired outsiders. This could be the start of the dyke building 'explosion' in the SE which originated in local rivalries rather than purely racial lines

I think that regional alliances of landowners and military men (who to some extent would become the same people) would tend to coalesce
And probably within previously existing local boundaries because they were the people you knew and trusted

[Imperial Dave]

Very true....shrinking horizons, no imperial overlordship or control. In those circumstances the relationship between landowner/local populace becomes ever more symbiotic with the military stationed In the area