The Empire is dead, long live the army

[Justin Swanton]

The three main objections to a field army surviving in northern Gaul appear to be:

a) there is no direct and unequivocal mention of it,

b) there wasn't enough money to pay for it, and

c) there was no centralised authority to run it.

Does that sum it up?

[aligern]

Not quite Justin
My main objection is that there are mentions of forces in the period and area that describe a different construction, one of numerous contingents, laeti, limitanei, federates and we can assume buccellarii . So there is an alternate model by which Aegidius and Syagrius can build a decent sized force and that model has more supporting, albeit contextual, evidence.
So my objection to the survival if a regular Roman army in Northern Gaul that descends from Notitia units or is reinvented and new recruited is just that there is a solution that better fits the evidence.
Roy

[Jim Webster]

3) No evidence either for a struggle or a decline. The only reason for 'allowing' Franks in was that it was easier to co-opt their support in exchange for land than to fight them. The policy was adopted with the Visigoths and it worked quite well. Natural to extend it to the Franks.

I am sorry but that is just wrong
First we have
The corn supply of Ancient Rome. Geoffrey Rickman
"The areas of greatest importance for corn were two, First the area in southwest France, the plains of Gascony, the lands of the Upper Garonne, and the Rhone valley; secondly the plains further to the north around the Loire and the Seine. It was the first area in the south and south west Gaul that was most obviously connected with the exporting centres of Narbonne and Arles. The second area was most naturally connected with supplies for the Rhine armies, but it was certainly not impossible for the products of this region to find their way up the Loire and then down the Rhone valley to Arles."

Then I would recommend you looked at 'The Roman Villa' by John Percival. It has a section looking at the villas in Gaul. He discusses the north. "Lying as it does on major routes of communication, the area not surprisingly suffered considerably in the troubles of the third century, but the indications of destruction at this period are fairly evenly matched by those of repair and reoccupation afterwards, and individual coin lists, such as those for the villas around Josnes, away to the north east, would seem to imply occupation until the end of the fourth century and perhaps even later."

Talking about the Paris area he comments "the general picture seems to be one of initial settlement fairly late in the first century, widespread destruction or abandonment in the third and then repair and recovery, (though often at a somewhat lower level) in the fourth."

This seems to be a general pattern, a really rough third century with signs of some recovery in the fourth, but the fourth century not as prosperous as, say, the second century

So this is the big grain area that might have fed (and paid) the armies, prosperous 2nd century, collapse in third century, fourth century some improvement, no real evidence for continuation into the fifth century.

Then we have 'The economies of Roman-British villas', the specific article of interest is
John Percival 'The villa economy, problems and perspectives'.
"It may be that at certain periods there was a tendency for villas to become more self sufficient; I have argued elsewhere that this happened in parts of Gaul in the later Empire, and that as a result a number of villas were able to survive into a period when the social and economic organisation of the Roman World was no longer there to be integrated into. But if they did, they ceased, effectively, to be villas, not simply in the sense that they no longer resembled villas, but in the deeper sense that they had become separated from the very world which had defined them. "

So basically the agriculture in northern France drifted down into peasant self sufficiency, outputs were considerably lower, they were not producing for a market, the market had disappeared, and the villas seem to have become small hamlets or villages inhabited by subsistence cultivators.

There is no evidence for the wealth of the area, in fact by claiming the area was wealthy you are flying in the face of the archaeological evidence.

Indeed if you read J F Drinkwater 'The Bacaudae of fifth-century Gaul' in Fifth-century Gaul: A crisis of Identity,

He points out that there was a major problem for landowners in Gaul in the 5th cent because there was increasing taxation (because Africa was no longer part of the Empire) which fell on the shoulders of the lesser landowners. Barbarian invasion, civil war, disease and starvation reduced the labour force. An increase in the number of internal frontiers meant that coloni and slaves found it easier to escape to better working conditions

To quote "In the first half of the 5th century the western empire was burdened by continuing heavy expenditure, principally on warfare, that had to be funded from a taxation base that was damaged and shrinking. As a result, those who were still available to be taxed were bound to be asked to pay more, In theory the burden of this extra taxation should have fallen on the shoulders of those who owned the most wealth, the great landowners. However and I have suggested, these may have already been facing a significant diminution in their incomes as a result of lower agricultural rents, higher wages and, we are entitled to suppose, a depressed market caused by a general contraction of the economy. In other words such people may well have faced very real difficulties ."

So in northern Gaul you have agriculture in decline, and Drinkwater points to various of the writers at the time to show that the Bacaudae were not distressed slaves and coloni fleeing to hide in the woods. They didn't need to, they merely had to flee to better conditions on another holding where a new master would be delighted to have their labour.

"Roman Gaul' resulted from the Roman military presence on the Rhine; the Rhine frontier gave Gaul its shape and meaning. In the fifth century, although there may have been some general policy of continuing to hold the Rhine, the position was clearly not as before. Specifically west of the river there developed internal frontier beyond which the imperial writ did not run, and over which refugees from imperial rule could seek asylum. "

"To maintain itself; that is to protect itself and fill its treasury, the Roman state needed to recover as many as possible of these lost territories. It was too weak to wage indiscriminate war against the Barbarians who had settled or who were settling on Roman soil, therefore its obvious strategy was, while attempting to limit further barbarian expansion, to concentrate on the gaining of those areas that had drifted out of Roman control but which, as yet, had not been claimed by Germans. In brief in the north at least, imperial generals operated a policy not of defence or even policing, but of reconquest."

"Until this period, the members of the external communities suggested above may well have considered themselves to be involved in no direct rebellion against Rome. They probably thought of themselves as Roman. They may even have continued to recognise the authority of the emperor, if on their own terms. They will certainly not have called themselves Bacaudae. However , when the attempt was made to integrate them fully within the Roman empire, they resisted, in necessary by force, with the help of their dependents, free and slave."

To put it simply, North Gaul was screwed ;-)

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

Jim has just made an excellent case for the continuation of Roman administration in northern Gaul. 

Drinkwater notes the 'increasing taxation' and "In brief in the north at least, imperial generals operated a policy not of defence or even policing, but of reconquest." Hmmm ...

Percival indicates that "the villas around Josnes, away to the north east, would seem to imply occupation until the end of the fourth century and perhaps even later."  My impression is that he does not address the 5th century.

Regarding Rickman, let us look at Sidonius again.

"when the Gothic ravages were over, and the crops were all destroyed by fire, you distributed corn to the destitute throughout all the ruined land of Gaul at your own expense, though it would have been relief enough to our starving peoples if the grain had come to them, not as a free gift, but by the usual paths of commerce. We saw the roads encumbered with your grain-carts. Along the Saône and Rhone we saw more than one granary which you had entirely filled. [6] The legends of the heathen are eclipsed; Triptolemus must yield his pride of place, whom his fatherland of Greece deified for his discovery of corn; Greece, famed for her architects, her sculptors and her artists, who consecrated temples, and fashioned statues, and painted effigies in his honour. A doubtful story fables that this son of Ceres came wandering among peoples savage and acorn-fed, and that from two ships, to which poetry later assigned the form of dragons, he distributed the unknown seed. But you brought supplies from either Mediterranean shore, and, if need were, you would have sought them among the cities of the Tyrrhenian sea; your granaries filled not two paltry ships, but the basins of two great rivers." - Book III Letter 12 to Bishop Patiens, AD 474

We observe the all-too-real ravages of the Gothic incursion, but also that significant granaries still exist (as of AD 474) and that one bishop can afford to buy relief for a whole region "from either Mediterranean shore", indicating that perhaps grain trade and transportation were not so limited as Rickman thinks.  We may note, as Jim has, the use of the Rhone and Saone for the transportation of grain.

In fact, Sidonius gives the impression that Roman administration, tax collection and, oddly enough, the Roman army are carrying on at full blast as of 474-475.  Having warned his kinsman Apollinaris that an intrigue is afoot ("venomous tongues have been secretly at work, whispering in the ear of the ever-victorious Chilperic, our Master of the Soldiery" - V.6), in his next letter he identifies the intriguers as certain base fellows who are abusing the administration of Gaul:

"These are they at whose appearance the world's great scoundrels would confess themselves surpassed, Narcissus, Asiaticus, Massa, Marcellus, Carus, Parthenius, Licinus, Pallas, and all their peers. 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." - Letters V.7.3 AD 474-5

The picture Sidonius paints is of a very present and pervasive Roman administration being (perhaps characteristically for the period) abused by various officials.  We should bear in mind that the provincials in the debateable lands of southern Gaul appear to have been sustaining both a Roman administration and, from the reference to soldiers and pay, an army.

We may note also how power seems to rest with Chilperic, the Magister Militum, the commander of the army.

This seems to me to be a good measure by which to assess the condition, status and administration of northern Gaul in the same period, albeit without the destructive Gothic incursions or the parasitic Imperial favourites.  I do not see Aegidius or Syagrius having any incentive to abandon the existing system.

[Jim Webster]

Jim has just made an excellent case for the continuation of Roman administration in northern Gaul. 

Drinkwater notes the 'increasing taxation' and "In brief in the north at least, imperial generals operated a policy not of defence or even policing, but of reconquest." Hmmm ...

Yes, the Bagaudae were a major problem between AD 409-17. The increasing taxation which led to them was in that period. Once you have them, they aren't paying taxes any more.

Percival indicates that "the villas around Josnes, away to the north east, would seem to imply occupation until the end of the fourth century and perhaps even later."  My impression is that he does not address the 5th century.

Nor the 6th, nor the 7th.  But as I pointed out later, the villas that did continue did so on an entirely different economic basis, they couldn't keep slave or coloni labour forces easily, labour costs rose and they reverted to subsistence agriculture

Regarding Rickman, let us look at Sidonius again.

"when the Gothic ravages were over, and the crops were all destroyed by fire, you distributed corn to the destitute throughout all the ruined land of Gaul at your own expense, though it would have been relief enough to our starving peoples if the grain had come to them, not as a free gift, but by the usual paths of commerce. We saw the roads encumbered with your grain-carts. Along the Saône and Rhone we saw more than one granary which you had entirely filled. [6] The legends of the heathen are eclipsed; Triptolemus must yield his pride of place, whom his fatherland of Greece deified for his discovery of corn; Greece, famed for her architects, her sculptors and her artists, who consecrated temples, and fashioned statues, and painted effigies in his honour. A doubtful story fables that this son of Ceres came wandering among peoples savage and acorn-fed, and that from two ships, to which poetry later assigned the form of dragons, he distributed the unknown seed. But you brought supplies from either Mediterranean shore, and, if need were, you would have sought them among the cities of the Tyrrhenian sea; your granaries filled not two paltry ships, but the basins of two great rivers." - Book III Letter 12 to Bishop Patiens, AD 474

We observe the all-too-real ravages of the Gothic incursion, but also that significant granaries still exist (as of AD 474) and that one bishop can afford to buy relief for a whole region "from either Mediterranean shore", indicating that perhaps grain trade and transportation were not so limited as Rickman thinks.  We may note, as Jim has, the use of the Rhone and Saone for the transportation of grain.

The church in Italy in this period tended to import grain from Sicily where there were considerable estates which had been donated to the church. Whether the grain in this case is African or Sicilian we cannot know.



In fact, Sidonius gives the impression that Roman administration, tax collection and, oddly enough, the Roman army are carrying on at full blast as of 474-475.  Having warned his kinsman Apollinaris that an intrigue is afoot ("venomous tongues have been secretly at work, whispering in the ear of the ever-victorious Chilperic, our Master of the Soldiery" - V.6), in his next letter he identifies the intriguers as certain base fellows who are abusing the administration of Gaul:

"These are they at whose appearance the world's great scoundrels would confess themselves surpassed, Narcissus, Asiaticus, Massa, Marcellus, Carus, Parthenius, Licinus, Pallas, and all their peers. 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." - Letters V.7.3 AD 474-5

The picture Sidonius paints is of a very present and pervasive Roman administration being (perhaps characteristically for the period) abused by various officials.  We should bear in mind that the provincials in the debateable lands of southern Gaul appear to have been sustaining both a Roman administration and, from the reference to soldiers and pay, an army.

We may note also how power seems to rest with Chilperic, the Magister Militum, the commander of the army.

This seems to me to be a good measure by which to assess the condition, status and administration of northern Gaul in the same period, albeit without the destructive Gothic incursions or the parasitic Imperial favourites.  I do not see Aegidius or Syagrius having any incentive to abandon the existing system.
[/quote]

Remember Sidonius was from Southern Gaul, a very different world from the North. Also if I remember correctly Chilperic was a Burgundian and his force was probably largely Burgundian. Also Southern Gaul was far more settled and prosperous in the north until the Visigoths finally broke their leash in the time of Sidonius. Up until about 470 the south was barely disputed

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

Remember Sidonius was from Southern Gaul, a very different world from the North. Also if I remember correctly Chilperic was a Burgundian and his force was probably largely Burgundian. Also Southern Gaul was far more settled and prosperous in the north until the Visigoths finally broke their leash in the time of Sidonius. Up until about 470 the south was barely disputed

How was southern Gaul a 'very different world' from the north?  This statement seems to be the basis of the assumption that northern Gaul could not support an army, and hence might be worth quantifying as much as possible, or at least pointing out the indicators that lead to this conclusion.

Drinkwater's analysis of bacaudae seems less than relevant to the northern Gaul of the post-450s where the Magister Militum seems free to set his own tax rates (and is not paying any of it to Rome - not so much because of Burgundians or Visigoths in the way as because Aegidius did not recognise the post-Majorian emperors).

I am a bit puzzled by the insistence that northern Gaul reverted to subsistence agriculture because the smaller farmers were getting squeezed (in 1st century BC Italy, despite spectacular slave revolts, the squeezing of small farmers went hand in hand with the rise of huge estates) and that slaves and/or coloni could have found it easier to flit to places where their services were more appreciated.  If we insist that northern Gaul was cut off by barbarians, where are they going to go, particularly if some scholar tries to restrict the Domain of Soissons to a day's travel in each direction?

What was true in AD 409-417 seems no longer to be true in 468-486 - unless I am missing something?

One further quote from our friend Sidonius, who is waxing lyrical about his own villa (Aviaticum) in a letter of AD 461-7 (Letter II.2 to Domitius).  Having rhapsodised about the dwelling and the lake, he summarises the actual land thus:

"It is not in my bond to describe the estate itself; suffice it to say that it has spreading woods and flowery meadows, pastures rich in cattle and a wealth of hardy shepherds."

This seems to be an estate in flourishing condition and by no means reduced to subsistence agriculture on smallholdings.

It is a pity that we lack a similar correspondent from northern Gaul - Remigius' Declamations, praised by Sidonius in Letter IX.7 as a result of a citizen of Clermont making a journey to Rheims and bringing back a copy, are lost to us.  One does not however get the impression that Sidonius' travelling citizen found northern Gaul very different from his home.

[Patrick Waterson]

Ok, we clearly have a different view of what professional soldiers are    To me, a soldier maintained by a paymaster is a professional - who the paymaster helps define the type of professional.   And there was I thinking I'd found some common ground

Unfortunately while this is certainly true of the mediaeval and Renaissance periods it is not a wholly helpful pointer in the case of the Domain of Soissons, because the point at issue seems to be whether or not a state-maintained regular army existed.  Lumping bucellarii (who admittedly were usually of similar type and training levels to regulars) together with the milites of the legiones and auxilia rather blurs the issue on this particular point.  The aim is not so much to discover common ground as to identify what is being grown in it. 

[Apologies incidentally for irregular replies: connections are a bit spotty in my neck of the woods.]

[Jim Webster]

Remember Sidonius was from Southern Gaul, a very different world from the North. Also if I remember correctly Chilperic was a Burgundian and his force was probably largely Burgundian. Also Southern Gaul was far more settled and prosperous in the north until the Visigoths finally broke their leash in the time of Sidonius. Up until about 470 the south was barely disputed

How was southern Gaul a 'very different world' from the north?  This statement seems to be the basis of the assumption that northern Gaul could not support an army, and hence might be worth quantifying as much as possible, or at least pointing out the indicators that lead to this conclusion.

Drinkwater's analysis of bacaudae seems less than relevant to the northern Gaul of the post-450s where the Magister Militum seems free to set his own tax rates (and is not paying any of it to Rome - not so much because of Burgundians or Visigoths in the way as because Aegidius did not recognise the post-Majorian emperors).

No the Magister Militum is not free to set his own tax rates. We have no evidence that the 'MM' in the north could even collect taxes. We have no evidence there was much prosperity to tax. Remember the archaeolog, the villas do not thrive in the fourth century and there is little evidence for them in the 5th, other than as peasant settlements.
Actually if he's acting within proper Roman authority a MM cannot set tax rates anyway, if he's setting tax rates you're already admitting that proper Roman systems have collapsed.

I am a bit puzzled by the insistence that northern Gaul reverted to subsistence agriculture because the smaller farmers were getting squeezed (in 1st century BC Italy, despite spectacular slave revolts, the squeezing of small farmers went hand in hand with the rise of huge estates) and that slaves and/or coloni could have found it easier to flit to places where their services were more appreciated.  If we insist that northern Gaul was cut off by barbarians, where are they going to go, particularly if some scholar tries to restrict the Domain of Soissons to a day's travel in each direction?

Simple, there was plenty of land that wasn't under Imperial control. After all that's what the 5th century Bagaudae appear to have been. Also there were the 'barbarians' who had land and could always use more labour and offered better conditions. Comparing it with Italy is a total red herring, where could a coloni or slave go? In Gaul, a weeks walk brought you into an entirely different jurisdiction.

What was true in AD 409-417 seems no longer to be true in 468-486 - unless I am missing something?

Well the Bretons were still enticing away slaves from even southern Gaul, (sidonius) so the situation seems to be rumbling on.


One further quote from our friend Sidonius, who is waxing lyrical about his own villa (Aviaticum) in a letter of AD 461-7 (Letter II.2 to Domitius).  Having rhapsodised about the dwelling and the lake, he summarises the actual land thus:

"It is not in my bond to describe the estate itself; suffice it to say that it has spreading woods and flowery meadows, pastures rich in cattle and a wealth of hardy shepherds."

This seems to be an estate in flourishing condition and by no means reduced to subsistence agriculture on smallholdings.

Yes, and it is in the southern half of Gaul, where the area between the Burgundians and Visigoths seems to have remained reasonably prosperous and under reasonable Imperial control under the Visigoths finally took it over. It isn't in the northern half of Gaul.

It is a pity that we lack a similar correspondent from northern Gaul - Remigius' Declamations, praised by Sidonius in Letter IX.7 as a result of a citizen of Clermont making a journey to Rheims and bringing back a copy, are lost to us.  One does not however get the impression that Sidonius' travelling citizen found northern Gaul very different from his home.

A man travels north, buys a book of a bishop and travels back. The same could have happened in 6th or 7th century Gaul and none of it proves that the Roman empire is in control. The fact that there Sidonious's correspondents are in the south, not the north is part of the evidence for the fact that literary society (as opposed to Bishops selling what appear to be collected copies of their sermons) had ceased. Sidonious corresponds, when safe, with his social contemporaries living amongst the Visigoths and the Burgundians because Roman life continued there, but his correspondence with the north is entirely lacking for the very reason that the sort of people and their way of life had gone. Yes, the Church is still there, and churchmen are still literate and perhaps even literary, but they're in a different milieu.

Jim

[Erpingham]

Unfortunately while this is certainly true of the mediaeval and Renaissance periods it is not a wholly helpful pointer in the case of the Domain of Soissons, because the point at issue seems to be whether or not a state-maintained regular army existed.  Lumping bucellarii (who admittedly were usually of similar type and training levels to regulars) together with the milites of the legiones and auxilia rather blurs the issue on this particular point.  The aim is not so much to discover common ground as to identify what is being grown in it. 

I suppose this is the nub of it really.  I approach the problem from its future and you from its past.  I really don't think a world of armed and drilled legiones and auxilia existed in the West any more and really hadn't for some time.  To me, a state-maintained regular army is gone, replaced by a state sanctioned/ supported professional force of bucellarii of the major players, paid contingents of barbarian troops (who we may call laeti, foederates, auxilia or what ever classical terminology our Roman elite felt comfortable with), allies and garrison militias (who may well be able to trace an ancestry to units of the old Imperial army).  It is an army that looks like that of Aetius or even Byzantine armies in 6th century Italy.  It looks like what Early medieval armies will become.   However, we have to come to this through surmise from the evidence we have and we weight evidence and surmise differently

To refer to a point I made earlier but we haven't picked up is the role of towns in all this.  Unlike Roman Britain, towns persist.  Villas may decline or become subsistence farms but do the rich move into the towns and continue to farm for surplus in their territory from the safety of their walls?  This is the way things go in Italy.  If so, what does this do to our political/military dynamic?

[Jim Webster]

In some cases the villas become the landed estates of Barbarian nobles. Apparently there are a lot of villas/villages around Paris which apparently became Royal estate at a very early stage and it might even have been Clovis who acquired them.

The Visigoth nobility also seem to have 'Romanised' and to have moved into Villas, before being kicked out and fleeing south to Spain, and after them even if the villas failed as elite dwellings, their land/estates may have continued, but farmed by small tenants of varying degrees of freedom rather than by labourers.
On thing that is commented on is how the Roman aristocracy in southern Gaul migrates to the Church. They had no chance of Imperial preferment (or very little) and they went into the Church instead, often after they'd had families who could follow on behind them.
This didn't happen to the same extent in Italy where there were still Imperial positions. So it might be that the Gallic church was the thread of continuity, and it does seem that Bishops were important civic figures, hence Sidonius as bishop of Clermont took a leading role in the defence against the Visigoths when they besieged it in  474
Interestingly whilst he hopes for assistance from the Burgundians, he never seems to have hoped for succour from some northern field army which could easily have raised the siege, even if they did so with Burgundian assistance.

Jim

[aligern]

My worry about the economic  argument is that we become led into a line of logic that says
1) There once was a field army in Northern Gaul, let us say in the late 4th century.
2) We suspect that it was there to get beaten in the 406  multi-tribal Rhine crossing.
3) It could have been reconstituted by Constantine.
4) the economy of Northern Gaul was strong enough to support it without  the aid of the tax base of the rest of the Western Empire.
5) this army survives as the force of the MM per Gallias at least in part until 486 under Aegidius and then Syagrius.

Given that the Aquitaine region supports 20,000 or so Goths (maybe) and that Burgundia may well support more than 10,000  it is reasonable to assume that the potential Northern realm of Aegidius.can provide support for an army as big as that of Euric , or at least as big as the forces of the Burgundians.
The above sort of looks like a case, but it has a huge problem and that is that there is a better case and that is that :
a) The norm military forces  in  Late Roman Gaul are The buccellarii of rich landowners, federate Germans such as the Franks and Burgundians. Laeti such as the Alans and perhaps Taifali, independent players such as the Saxons at Bayeux and the Loire and the Bretons. I, of course, accept that the Visigoths,  Burgundians and Franks all become independent actors within the fifth century. There are also relict Roman forces probably linked to surviving civitates who are almost certainly also hiring barbarians such as the force of 'Goths' that may be associated with a particular brooch style in a 5th century context.
b) These forces are living in a Gaul that. is much dislocated from its earlier more prosperous times. This likely means that troops need a close relationship with the land.
c) Generally to build a large force a leader needs to create an alliance, so Clovis needs to coerce other Franks to his banner, AlaricII  expects reinforcements from the Arverni.
d) The prime example of a large army scraping together troops from all sources is that of Aetius. It consists of federates, laeti, independents and crucially troops who were formerly Roman soldiers.
Doubtless these or similar formations, much reduced are the source of the Romanised dress and drill of those that Procopius reports.
As this force is raised in Northern Gaul it is almost certain that there is no Roman field army in Northern Gaul in 450.
That does not preclude Aegidius from having tax, especially tax in kind, resources, a force of buccellarii, federates and allies and hired troops.
What it does put into fantasy land is that he had regular Roman troops trained and equipped in lineal descent from the army of the Notitia.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

No the Magister Militum is not free to set his own tax rates. We have no evidence that the 'MM' in the north could even collect taxes. We have no evidence there was much prosperity to tax. Remember the archaeolog, the villas do not thrive in the fourth century and there is little evidence for them in the 5th, other than as peasant settlements.
Actually if he's acting within proper Roman authority a MM cannot set tax rates anyway, if he's setting tax rates you're already admitting that proper Roman systems have collapsed.

Not at all, simply that the divided civil and military functions have been reunited.  A Magister Militum ruling a domain of his own is not going to ask the emperor he does not recognise in a city he is supposedly 'cut off from' for permission to change the tax rate.

We might with benefit look at another of Sidonius' letters in this respect.  The name Tonantius Ferreolus is perhaps unfamiliar; he was the grandson of consul Afranius Syagrius, three times prefect and a patrician.

"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. " - Letters VII.12 c.AD 479

A Magister Militum 'cut off' from Rome, or at least not recognising the current emperor, is not going to feel himself limited by any stipulation that his rank prevents him from adjusting taxes, particularly when he is the sole end-user.  If a prefect can do it (although this may have been done when Ferreolus was a patrician, a rather enhanced status), Aegidius is not going to feel he is debarred from doing so - nor is Syagrius, who would have inherited Aegidius' arrangements.

And since we have already agreed that Drinkwater does not address the 5th century AD, we cannot with any certainty pronounce that northern Gaul lacked the resources to tax.

I am a bit puzzled by the insistence that northern Gaul reverted to subsistence agriculture because the smaller farmers were getting squeezed (in 1st century BC Italy, despite spectacular slave revolts, the squeezing of small farmers went hand in hand with the rise of huge estates) and that slaves and/or coloni could have found it easier to flit to places where their services were more appreciated.  If we insist that northern Gaul was cut off by barbarians, where are they going to go, particularly if some scholar tries to restrict the Domain of Soissons to a day's travel in each direction?

Simple, there was plenty of land that wasn't under Imperial control. After all that's what the 5th century Bagaudae appear to have been. Also there were the 'barbarians' who had land and could always use more labour and offered better conditions. Comparing it with Italy is a total red herring, where could a coloni or slave go?

Gaul? 

I think the attempt to depict northern Gaul as an isolated enclave of unadministered subsistence farmers is wearing thin.  Southern Gaul is admitted to be comparatively wealthy - but not northern Gaul.  However when it comes to the idea that coloni were deserting in droves, an allusion to a letter of Sidonius in which he mentions coloni being lured from southern Gaul by the Bretons is used to imply identical conditions/processes in northern Gaul.  Yet when any other attempts are made to suggest similarities based on Sidonius' descriptions of conditions in southern Gaul we get an immediate insistence on complete and utter difference between the two.

Which is why I remain convinced that Syagrius had a Roman administration and an army supported by taxes - there seems to be no convincing argument to the contrary, and all the indications in neighbouring southern Gaul are that the administration survived right up to the final demise of the western Empire.  There seems to be no good reason why Aegidius and Syagrius would drop an existing and functional administration.   If it was creaky, they could fix it, as Tonantius Ferreolus did in southern Gaul - and with more permanence.

On the matter of troop composition, the point has (rightly) been made that Chilperic, the Burgundian Magister Militum, preferred to enlist Burgundians.  Odoacer the Rugian, although chief of foederati rather than Magister  Militum per se, similarly preferred to enlist Rugians.  Now, who are Aegidius and Syagrius, both of a long-established Gallo-Roman family, going to recruit by preference when they each become Magister Militum?  And if there really are coloni still leaving the farms, joining the army means they do not have to go very far or evade very hard.

... Sidonius as bishop of Clermont took a leading role in the defence against the Visigoths when they besieged it in  474
Interestingly whilst he hopes for assistance from the Burgundians, he never seems to have hoped for succour from some northern field army which could easily have raised the siege, even if they did so with Burgundian assistance.

This is a more valid point, at least to my mind, than trying to depress northern Gaul below the poverty line.  The question arises what Syagrius himself would have been doing as of AD 474, and unfortunately our sources do not seem to throw a lot of light on that.

[Jim Webster]

Actually Patrick, if you read Drinkwater's paper you'd realise he concentrates on the 5th century. His entire paper is about the 5th century Bacaudae

The process in Southern Gaul was slower, because there was still more order and control

As for there being no evidence to the contrary that there was order in North gaul, have you ever bothered looking at the archaeology?
It's not that we're arguing from silence, it's that your stance is only possible if you ignore the archaeology
I posted a bit about the villas which just happen to be taken from books I have about. But Drinkwater uses the archaeology as do a lot of the other historians. G Halsall has a fascinating paper on 'The Origins of the Reihengraberzivilisation forty years on' which might explain a lot about the aristocracy in the north.
There is a large amount of work that has been done on the issue, and you're just ignoring it.
Anyway I've got to be one the road for three or four days, so I'll not be near a computer. I might look in when I'm back to see if I'm still spitting into the wind on this. Because until people actually bother to check the stuff that is there, there is no point in engaging in wild flights of fancy as to what might be there.

Jim

[aligern]

The Empire was always a negotiation between the military power, generally the emperor or. his representatives, and the landowners. I think it is a complete flight of fancy to think that A Magister Militum could just set himself up as dictator and set the tax rates he liked. Whatever they did would have to be in conjunction with the people who controlled big agriculture.
Someone earlier talked about landowners moving into towns and there is some evidence for this. In insecure areas this will have led on to the abandonment of outlying areas. That has tax implications. If I am a farmer I do not plant all my land, I plant what I can eat or sell. If there is a tax placed on me then I plant more land in order to pay the tax. This is why low levels of tax are an economic stimulant.
However, if barbarians raid the area or if my peasants run away to avoid having to work hard then the area that is abandoned comes directly off the area of land whose produce pays the taxes. So in a sophisticated economy with a full time soldiery, supported by tax the loss of say 20% of agricultural production is a disaster for the military. For a year they could coerce payment, but that initiates a downward spiral which will remove more production next year. However, if  one looked at the fields the
vast majority of them, 80%, would still be full of grain. In such a situation it is much easier to keep an infantry unit in being by getting the chaps out to work in the fields than it would be to keep a cavalry unit going. Of course, some units will collapse completely as the garrison of Patavis does, some will reduce in numbers, some join the buccellarii bands of landowners and city states that are  now looking after themselves. That I think, explains the former Roman soldiers that join  Aetius and the antique uniforms story in Procopius.
Clearly troops are still maintained and can be raised by such as Ecdicius, but they are personal retainers rather than regular soldiers in units and  the economic surplus to support them is being spent on them and not on a non existent field army.
Halsall's view IIRC is that local aristos become Franks and compete to be more Frankish than the Franksand there could be a lot of useful truth there. in Spain it looks like the local landowners find it useful to become Goths, because the upper classes of any groups in close proximity have more in common than with each other than they do with the lower classes of their parent culture and language. That all makes a lot of sense, especially when there is no competing way of advancement via imperial service and you are having to defend yourself and your land with forces raised from that land. One is reminded of Theudis he Goth who married a rich Roman lady in Spain and maintained a force of 2000 men on his estates. also the laws of Euric which codify the relationship between the buccellarius  and his master.
As Anthony said earlier, if a situation starts with army type A , then goes through a dark period, then emerges with army type A we can accept as fact that during the dark oeriod the army was type A.
When the army type start as A, the regular Notitia force and after the dark oeriod emerges as type B, a force based upon personal relationships, tribal groupings and relict garrisons we have to look for a change. In the case of Northern  Gaul that change has to take place before the actions of Aetius in 450 because we have  of Aetius army and we know that it did not include a large force of regularly embodied Roman troops from the old regular army.
Given that the change has taken place by 450, nether Aegidius or Syagrius will have been fielding the army of the Notitia in the 460s, 70s or most definitely 486.
Roy

[Justin Swanton]

I'm rather distracted with after-hours design work at present, so expect an erratic presence from me for the next week or so.

Doesn't mean I haven't got lots to say.