The Empire is dead, long live the army

[Justin Swanton]

Justin, I found the Latin for the source references (other than Gregory) for Orleans. They are at the bottom of the wiki article on the battle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Orleans_(463)

Patrick kindy translated them:

Sources for the Battle of Orleans 463

Hydatius:
Adversus Aegidium comitem utriusque militiae, virum, ut fama commendat, Deo bonis operibus complacentem, in Armoricana provincia Fretiricus frater Theuderici regis insurgens, cum his cum quibus fuerat, superatus occiditur.

Hydatius (longwinded):
His opponent Aegidius, both the Count of Soldiers and a man of great reputation [literally: commended by fame], pleasing to God through his good works, defeated and killed the revolting Frederic, brother of Theoderic the king, who was there with his own (?) in Armorica province.

Trans. Waterson

(Note: 'cum his cum quibus fuerat' looks nonsensical, literally 'with this with whom [plural] he was'.  'Revolting' (insurgens) means 'rebelling'.)

Thanks for this Rodge.

I might just add a couple of adjustments to the first translation. The 'Comes utriusque militiae' means literally 'Count of both armies' i.e. supreme commander of both cavalry and infantry. It echoes the title of the former C-in-C West, Stilicho: 'Magister Utriusque militiae'. It effectively means that Aegidius had complete command of all Roman forces in Gaul.

The phrase 'cum his cum quibus fuerat' makes good sense: 'with those with whom he was.'

'Insurgens' can have the meaning of rebelled, but in this context it simply means 'rose up against', i.e. attacked/invaded.

My translation then would be: "Theuderic's brother Frederic, who, attacking Aegidius, Count of Both Armies (a man pleasing to God for his good works as is well known), in the province of Armorica, was defeated and killed along with those who accompanied him."

Gallic Chronicle 511:
Fredericus frater Theuderici regis pugnans cum Francis occiditur iuxta Ligerim.

Gallic Chronicle 511 (concise)
Frederic brother of Theoderic the king was killed fighting with [or against] the Franks near the Loire.

The parallel text from Gregory of Tours (History of the Franks, II,18ff):

Now Childeric fought at Orleans and Odoacer came with the Saxons to Angers. At that time a great plague destroyed the people. Egidius died and left a son, Syagrius by name. On his death Odoacer received hostages from Angers and other places. The Britanni were driven from Bourges by the Goths, and many were slain at the village of Déols. Count Paul with the Romans and Franks made war on the Goths and took booty. When Odoacer came to Angers, king Childeric came on the following day, and slew count Paul, and took the city. In a great fire on that day the house of the bishop was burned. 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. Odoacer made an alliance with Childeric, and they subdued the Alamanni, who had overrun that part of Italy.

Unscrambling the course of events would seem to suggest that this happened: the Visigoths, led by Frederic, attack the Roman territories in northern Gaul. In this they are backed by the Emperor Libius Severus (461-465), whom Aegidius does not recognise. Libius sends a senior officer of his army, Odoacer (later to become Magister Militum in Italy) who raises a force of federate Saxons.

The Visigothic army under Frederic crosses the Loire near Orleans and is met by the army of Aegidius, a mixture of Roman troops and Frankish federates. Frederic is killed and his army defeated. Aegidius dies and Count Paulus takes command. It seems then that the Romans advance to Bourges, to the south, occupying it. They suffer defeat there (I propose that the 'Britanni' refers to the II Britannica legion that was in the town and was caught by the Visigoths - Riothamus's intervention came several years later).

On hearing of Aegidius's death, Odoacer takes advantage of the power vacuum and occupies Angers, just north of the Loire, with his Saxons. This occupation is peaceful since Odoacer does not need to do more than take hostages as a surety for the city's loyalty. Paulus, now facing a domestic crisis of authority, returns with his army to Roman Gaul and goes to meet Odoacer at Angers. There Odoacer persuades Paulus's federate ally Childeric to change sides and kill Paulus. Roman Gaul is now part of the empire again.

The Saxons, possibly displeased by the fact that peace has been made without their being able to indulge in a decent bout of pillage and looting, revolt. The Roman troops deal with them swiftly and effectively and the Franks finish the job, possibly in Holland where the Saxons originated from. Tranquillity is definitively restored and coins are struck for the first time in a long time in the name of the reigning emperor.

Does any source contradict this reconstruction?

[Patrick Waterson]

I recommend Justin's adjustments to the translation: he has a much better feel for Hydatius than I do.

[rodge]

Here is another interpretation of the 'Odovacer' character:

In Gregory's Chapters 18 and 19 the names are spelt differently Adovacrius [ch 18] and Odovacrius [ch.19]

Looking at the English translation I have for chronology:

18. Now Childeric fought at Orleans and Odoacer came with the Saxons to Angers. At that time a great plague destroyed the people. Egidius died and left a son, Syagrius by name. On his death Odoacer received hostages from Angers and other places. The Britanni were driven from Bourges by the Goths, and many were slain at the village of Déols. Count Paul with the Romans and Franks made war on the Goths and took booty. When Odoacer came to Angers, king Childeric came on the following day, and slew count Paul, and took the city. In a great fire on that day the house :of the bishop was burned.

[The Latin says Adovacrius in ch18.]

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

[The Latin says Odovacrius in ch19]

20. Euric, king of the Goths, in the 14th year of his reign, placed duke Victorius in command of seven cities. And he went at once to Clermont, and desired to add it to the others, and writings concerning this exist to the present. He gave orders to set up at the church of Saint Julian the columns which are placed there. He gave orders to build the church of Saint Laurentius and saint Germanus at the village of Licaniacus. He was at Clermont nine years. He brought charges against Euchirius, a senator, whom he ordered to be put in prison and taken out at night, and after having him bound beside an old wall he ordered the wall to be pushed over upon him. As for himself, since he was over ¬wanton in his love for women and was afraid of being killed by the people of Auvergne, he fled to Rome, and there was stoned to death because he wished to practise a similar wantonness. Euric reigned four years after Victorius's death, and died in the twenty¬ seventh year of his reign There was also at that time a great earthquake.

Aegidius died c.464-6 in ch18.
In ch19 'Odoacer made an alliance with Childeric.' If this is a sequential timeline it would make it c.466/7.

However this is 4-6 years before Odovacar in Italy is appointed leader of the foederati c.470/1 and 9/10 years before he becomes Rex.
So does 'after' in ch19 not mean 'immediately after' but could mean there is a sizable gap of 6-10 years?

I wonder this because of the date gap between ch 19 and ch 20:

Euric was made king in c.466 so ch20 starts in 480 (466 +.' the 14th year of his reign'). So there is a c.14 year gap between Ch 19 and 20.

I think the Adovacrius in Ch18 is a different person to the Odovariucus in ch19.

If this is correct them Childeric could have made an alliance with the Odoacer we know of as King of Italy, when he was King, if the gap between 18 and 19 is wide. Childeric dies 481/2.

This raises some interesting ideas about Childeric's role to me.

[Patrick Waterson]

This is interesting: if Adovacrius of Book II chapter 18 is the same person as Odovacrius of chapter 19, then Justin's interpretation makes a lot of sense.  If Rodger is right about them perhaps being two different people, then chapter 19 would refer to later events in the time of Syagrius.

Under this interpretation, the Saxons with Adovacrius would be raiders attacking the plague-stricken land and, as they were taking hostages, presumably trying to settle.  If so, Childeric appears to have made common cause with them against Count Paul, which would at least in theory put the Franks and Saxons on the same side, which would be consistent with the anti-Alemanni alliance between Childeric and Odovacrius in chapter 19 but not with the all-out Frankish war against the Saxons in the same chapter.  However Gregory does have the alliance follow the war, making a forgive-and-forget alliance theoretically possible, if one accepts that the Saxons would be happy teaming up with those who had just spent the last few years slaughtering their kinsmen and overrunning their territories.

If we assume a gap of some years between chapters 18 and 19 (Gregory's "His ita gestis" - things having happened thus - is not very helpful for timing), and that Adovacrius was not Odovacrius, then war erupts between the Saxons and the Romans and the Saxons, who have presumably settled around Angers, are defeated and slaughtered by the Romans, Adovacrius not being mentioned, and meanwhile the Franks launch their own anti-Saxon campaign which may be around the Loire or may even be on their north-east frontier, the 'islands' being off the Dutch coast.

The joint campaign against the Alemanni by Odoacer and Childeric could be a very useful fixing-point if we could find any other reference to it.

Childeric's reign began c.457/8 and ended in 481/2.  During that time he had an 8-year exile.  Since he was actively campaigning c.463, he cannot have been in exile during 457-463.  His exile has to beat some point between 465 and 482, and if he has an alliance with Odoacer the Rex that presumably has to be in the period 476-482 as Odoacer was not really in a position to make alliances between 470 and 476 (he had a superior to do it for him).  Hence it would seem we could best place Childeric's exile from c.466/7 to c.474/5, which puts an alliance with Odoacer either into a narrow slot around AD 466 or a broader one around 476-481.  One point where an alliance would make sense is c.480 when Julius Nepos had just been murdered and Odoacer was invading Dalmatia to add it to his directly-ruled domains.  This would be consistent with chapter 19 being rather later than chapter 18 and quite close chronologically to chapter 20.

If on the other hand chapter 19 is a direct follow-on from chapter 18, the joint Childeric/Odovacar campaign has to take place c.466, when Italy is between emperors (Lubius Severus has not yet been replaced by Anthemius, and Olybrius is hovering in the wings).  The campaign would thus have needed the sanction of Ricimer, who effectively ran Italy at the time.

What would be really helpful is if we knew when the 'Alemanni' had become ensconced in Italy.  The tale of Gibuld being asked to desist from raiding by Saint Severinus (or Lupus) as mentioned here suggests that the Alemanni had started becoming a nuisance in the 470s, which is consistent with a campaign to evict them in the late 470s or with their building up after recovering from a sharp defeat c.466.

A look at the AD 480 map suggests that a joint anti-Alemanni campaign c.480 by Odoacer and the Franks would conveniently catch the Alemanni in a sandwich.  An Odoacer with a following of Saxons plus Childeric and his Franks heading to Italy c.466 could do so through Roman-held southern Gaul, though getting into Italy would have to be at Ricimer's behest.

I think the jury is still out on this one.  Thoughts?

[Justin Swanton]

Interesting reflection Rodge. It does seem however more consistent that Gregory was consulting two different sources for this passage and just copied two variants of Odoacer's name (which could also be spelled 'Odovacer'). The two paragraphs are clearly linked - Odoacer is with Childeric in 18, and Odoacer make an alliance with Childeric in 19. Paragraph 20 is a separate event - shown by Gregory indicating when it happened, in the 14th year of Euric's reign.

There was not always consistency in the spelling of an individual's name. Gregory's 'Egidius' compared to the more common 'Aegidius'; 'Siagrius' vs 'Syagrius', and so on.

There is no clear indication how much time elapsed between Paulus's death and the war with the Saxons. Notice however that it is Odoacer who concludes an alliance with Childeric, which would suggest he was still on the scene, before Syagrius took over. This can't have been very long after the incident at Angers.

[rodge]

I think we must agree to disagree on this Justin; I do not have your certainty regarding this passage and do not currently think that 'this can't have been very long after the incident at Angers'. I am aware of the differentiation in the spelling of names in the sources but on this occasion it may well not apply.

It is also possible that Gregory took this from the now lost 'Annals of Angers', the Liber Historae Francorum and another source.

In fact just before this modification to this post I looked again at MacGeorge and she covers this issue in some depth.
I am sad to report that she got there first with the observation I set out yesterday and I was unaware of her ideas (the two spellings and the time difference). Her view (looking at the text) is that in virtually all the manuscripts Ch18 has Adovacrius (or Adovagrius) and all texts for Ch19 'Odovaricus'.
From this she draws the conclusion that they are two different men.
And there was me thinking I had come up with something original......BTW I'm not saying that just because she has made the same analysis and deduction that it is correct, but it is interesting....

Patrick 'the joint campaign against the Alemanni by Odoacer and Childeric could be a very useful fixing-point if we could find any other reference to it.'.
Well.. I have looked and I cannot pin it down but it would be very useful if collectively we could go on a hunt.

[Patrick Waterson]

Rodger, could you precis McGeorge's findings, or at least assumptions/conclusions and their basis?  I assume there is more than you have mentioned, and if she has anything conclusive then all well and good.  If not, we need to broaden the scope of the search and perhaps the best way to do this is to set out how events and timelines would march in each case.

If I say "I can see arguments on both sides" I shall probably be strangled.    In favour of continuity between chapter 18 and 19 is the presence of Odoacer and Childeric and the fact that we do not have to explain what happened to Adovacrius.  Justin's suggestion that Odoacer might have been an officer in imperial service enlisting Saxons who then turned nasty ingeniously removes the sticking-point that nobody thereafter ever referred to him as a Saxon.

Against continuity between the two chapters is the difference in names (as Justin has pointed out, Gregory was not noted for consistency, so this may not be significant) and the question of exactly how Odoacer in c.465-6 would be useful against the Alemanni: would he have marched a Saxon contingent through Frankish territory, or a Frankish contingent through Imperial territory, to get at the Alemanni?  Putting this campaign shortly after events at Angers requires a useful force of Saxons to survive the process of being reduced to obedience - this is quite possible, but seems against the tenor of Gregory's "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." Needless to say the campaign against the Alemanni seems to be an orphan source-wise.

One additional way of pinning down the date might be: "In the ninth month of that year, there was an earthquake."  Earthquakes are not hugely common in Gaul, and it might be worth a search to see if anyone else among our surviving sources noticed it.  Dates to try would be 465-7 and 476-480 or 481.  (If both periods have an earthquake I shall probably give up on this ...)

[rodge]

Rodger, could you precis McGeorge's findings, or at least assumptions/conclusions and their basis?  I assume there is more than you have mentioned, and if she has anything conclusive then all well and good.  If not, we need to broaden the scope of the search and perhaps the best way to do this is to set out how events and timelines would march in each case.

I can tomorrow...

[Justin Swanton]

I suspect we will search in vain for a precise date of the Alamans depredations in Italy. Gibuld and St Severinus were both getting on in years in the 460s, so nothing precludes an Alaman invasion in Italy during that decade.

If Adovacrius was just the chieftain of a band of Saxon raiders, one wonders why he took hostages from Angers and several other places, rather than just grab booty. How does one explain Childeric's behaviour - killing his former ally in the same city Adovacrius occupied? One can theorise that he decided to become a freebooter in league with the Saxons, however this doesn't tally with his subsequent behaviour: he fights the Saxons in their home country and allies with Odovacerus against the Alamans. And if he was confident enough to dispense with his federate status, no longer fearing the Romans - who, incidentally, had just defeated the Visigoths and killed their king's brother - then where did these same Romans find the strength to crush the Saxons later on? Finally, if the Saxons occupy Angers (and other places) as invaders/raiders why is there war between them and the Romans only in 19 - which hypothetically takes place years later. Weren't they at war with each other in 18?

A first lecture gives the impression that Gregory links the events of 18 an 19 closely together - notice how he tries to take care over his chronology in 20, indicating events that are several years apart and fixing their dates with reference to the reigns of the kings. If there was a gap of several years between 18 and 19 it makes sense that he would have said so.

Odoacer is not yet king of Italy or even Magister Militum, but he acts as a plenipotentary in northern Gaul, doing as he sees fit to restore the northern provinces to imperial rule. Since, after Paulus's death, he represented imperial authority in the region, it seems natural that he was able to conclude an alliance with Childeric whom he had coaxed from loyalty to Paulus. Attacking the Alamans was not only the best way to advance his career with Ricimer, it was also his natural route home.

On the Adovacrius-Odovacrius question I don't have access to the original latin, still less to a scholarly analyses of the manuscript families, but a number of scholars maintain that the two names refer to the same person. The least one can say is that it is possible.

[rodge]

Justin, I agree it is possible.
As is the other theory.
There are many possibilities in this discussion as we all agreed on way back in this thread.
But they are fun to pursue and that is what makes this debate so interesting.

[rodge]

MacGeorge:
MacGeorge's case is that identify of the Adovaricus/Odovaricus is problematic but study of the Latin text suggests a solution.

Virtually all the original Latin manuscripts give Adovaricus (or Adovarigus) in Ch.18 and in Ch.19 Odovaricus. This is true of both the major Corbie and the Bruxelles MSS. Amongst the very large number of manuscripts of the Historia (Ormont and Collon/Pourpardin, Krunsch and Levinson) there are only one or two exceptions. In Ch. 18 of the Leiden MS (3rd reference only) read Odovarico. In Ch.19 there is only one exception, the Namur MS having Adovachrius.

Her view is that Ch.18 is a Saxon leader with a name when Latinized is similar to Odovacer.

It is interesting that Gregory divides this into two chapters (the divisions are by Gregory himself, not a later editor). The linking phrase is ambiguous 'his ita gestis' (trans, 'these things having happened') is probably Gregory's own.

He may have used 2 sources, one for Ch.18 and one for Ch.19 the first being part of a chronicle, probably annalistic, from Angers, the second a similar written source from elsewhere. It may be relevant that the Liber Historiae Francorum includes the material in Ch.18 (the proposed first source) but not Ch.19.

Gregory linked them together because the both referred to conflicts in the same region and because both mentioned Childeric; in one source, at a slightly later date, allied or employed by King Odovacer. The pattern of the various spellings supports the theory that there are two separate sources and, if so, the existence of to sources makes it more likely that the two different men appear in them.


Whilst this is not definitive it is possible. The logic holds up in my eyes.

The timescale shift between Ch.18 and Ch.19 referred to in an earlier post is my deduction based on the definite shift between Ch.19 and Ch.20 that immediately follows.


On another issue regarding Ch.18 it is generally assumed that there was one battle at Orleans reported by Gregory or his source:

'Childeric fought a battle at Orleans'
Penguin Classics, The History of the Franks, trans Thorpe 1974
'Now Childeric fought at Orleans and Odoacer came with the Saxons to Angers.'
Brehaut, 1916 http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/gregory-hist.asp#book3

'Pugnas' is the plural of 'pugna' suggesting more than one battle, in fact, multiple engagements at Orleans.
Patrick has suggested to me that 'Pugnas egit' presumably means 'pugnas agit', literally he 'did battles', but as 5thC Church Latin is not my strongpoint could we have a view on this?

[rodge]

One additional way of pinning down the date might be: "In the ninth month of that year, there was an earthquake."  Earthquakes are not hugely common in Gaul, and it might be worth a search to see if anyone else among our surviving sources noticed it.  Dates to try would be 465-7 and 476-480 or 481.  (If both periods have an earthquake I shall probably give up on this ...)

Patrick, a possible lead:

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

Notice however that it is Odoacer who concludes an alliance with Childeric, which would suggest he was still on the scene, before Syagrius took over. This can't have been very long after the incident at Angers.

18. Now Childeric fought at Orleans and Odoacer came with the Saxons to Angers. At that time a great plague destroyed the people. Egidius died and left a son, Syagrius by name. On his death Odoacer received hostages from Angers and other places. The Britanni were driven from Bourges by the Goths, and many were slain at the village of Déols. Count Paul with the Romans and Franks made war on the Goths and took booty. When Odoacer came to Angers, king Childeric came on the following day, and slew count Paul, and took the city. In a great fire on that day the house of the bishop was burned.


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

One question I have is why the action has suddenly shifted to Italy: the Romans defeat the Saxons, the Franks ravage 'their' (the Saxons') islands, there is an earthquake.  Then Odoacer makes an alliance with Childeric (a bit late in the campaign season) and they 'subdue' the Alemanni (as opposed to expelling them?), the Alemanni having overrun that part of Italy.

When, how and why did everyone suddenly move to Italy?

One additional way of pinning down the date might be: "In the ninth month of that year, there was an earthquake."  Earthquakes are not hugely common in Gaul, and it might be worth a search to see if anyone else among our surviving sources noticed it.  Dates to try would be 465-7 and 476-480 or 481.  (If both periods have an earthquake I shall probably give up on this ...)

Patrick, a possible lead:

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.

Nicely spotted.  This would presumably place the earthquake in AD 476, as Gregory has it in the ninth month, allowing Mamertus to institute his Rogations during 477.

However we do note 'earthquakes', which might invalidate my earlier thought that there should be only one to pin down.  Excellent detective work nonetheless, Rodge.

If Adovacrius was just the chieftain of a band of Saxon raiders, one wonders why he took hostages from Angers and several other places, rather than just grab booty. How does one explain Childeric's behaviour - killing his former ally in the same city Adovacrius occupied? One can theorise that he decided to become a freebooter in league with the Saxons, however this doesn't tally with his subsequent behaviour: he fights the Saxons in their home country and allies with Odovacerus against the Alamans. And if he was confident enough to dispense with his federate status, no longer fearing the Romans - who, incidentally, had just defeated the Visigoths and killed their king's brother - then where did these same Romans find the strength to crush the Saxons later on? Finally, if the Saxons occupy Angers (and other places) as invaders/raiders why is there war between them and the Romans only in 19 - which hypothetically takes place years later. Weren't they at war with each other in 18?

It is a puzzle, and suggesting that Adovacrius or Odovacrius was in imperial service does open up some possible solutions.  If he had been sent with a hired Saxon contingent to reduce the Angers region, and Childeric, who would be some distance from his usual stamping-grounds, had been hired to do the same, this marks the enigmatic Count Paul as a rebel of some description.  Were Odoacer (if indeed it was he) and Childeric obeying Libius Severus in eliminating Paul?  The Wikipedia entry for Aegidius has the following:

"A legendary story known to both Gregory of Tours and Fredegar tells that Childeric had fled to exile with the Thuringians, he arranged with his faithful follower Wiomad to send him a message when to return. Wiomad then provoked the Franks against their new leader, Aegidius, while at the same time tricked the Emperor Maurice into giving Childeric a great treasure for his return to his people."

Although Maurice (ruled 582-602) is an anachronism, the tale may bear the germ of an intrigue that took shape and bore fruit around 464-5.  This would incidentally negate my earlier assumption that Childeric's 8-year exile would have to be post-465.

If so, alignments might have changed following Syagrius' assumption of his father's status as ruler of the Domain of Soissons.  Odoacer's Saxons would presumably have been attached to the about-to-be-deceased Libius Severus while Syagrius would have been asserting his own authority.  Childeric may have decided that realigning himself with Syagrius was the safer option.

This is obviously speculative, and underlines the need for drawing up a timeline of persons and events as accurately as possible in order to have a background that allows isolated elements to be placed in perspective.

A first lecture gives the impression that Gregory links the events of 18 an 19 closely together - notice how he tries to take care over his chronology in 20, indicating events that are several years apart and fixing their dates with reference to the reigns of the kings. If there was a gap of several years between 18 and 19 it makes sense that he would have said so.

Odoacer is not yet king of Italy or even Magister Militum, but he acts as a plenipotentary in northern Gaul, doing as he sees fit to restore the northern provinces to imperial rule. Since, after Paulus's death, he represented imperial authority in the region, it seems natural that he was able to conclude an alliance with Childeric whom he had coaxed from loyalty to Paulus. Attacking the Alamans was not only the best way to advance his career with Ricimer, it was also his natural route home.

There intervenes the war between the Romans and the Saxons, in which Childeric is very definitely attacking the Saxons.  Only after this is the alliance concluded.

I begin to get the feeling something may be missing from the manuscripts.  Chapters 18 and 19 are unusually short, though not the shortest in the book (cf. IV.10).  Is Gregory actually giving us a joined-up narrative?

[aligern]

Quite possibly G is not giving a joined up narrative, but as Rodger mentioned earlier, gathering information on a subject and then putting it in order.  As he is working with annals, saints' lives and official documents , the mix is eclectic.

The mention of Italia makes best sense if Odoacer is in power there or working for Ricimer as an officer there. If he was Ricimer's officer one would expect a mention of R, of course.  After 476 it makes eminent sense for Odoacer to organise a two pronged offensive against the Allamans as they were pressing on Italia's Northern frontier.

Roy

[aligern]

This from Eugippius ch Xx cited in Hodgkin Italy and her Invaders Bk III p165

'Per id tempus quo Romanu constabat imperium, multorum milites oppidorum pro custodia limitis publicis stipendiis alebantur.
Which Hodgkin translates as:
'At that time, says Eugippius , when the Roman Empire still held together, the soldiers of many towns , were supported by public pay for the better guardianship of the limes'. This obscure sentence perhaps means that local troops were drafted off to the limes and there received, as was natural, imperial pay and equipments. ' When this custom ceased the squadrons (turmae)  of cavalry were obliterated; but the Batavian legion, (stationed at Passau) lasted as long as the limes itself stood.  From this legion certain soldiers had gone forth to Italy to bear to their comrades their last pay and these men had been slain on the march by the barbarians, no one knowing thereof.
'Qua consuetudine desinente simul militares turmae sunt deletae, cum limite Batavino utcunque numero perdurante ex quo perrexerant qui quidam ad Italiam extremum stipendium commilitonibus allaturi, quos in itinere peremptos a barbaris nullus agnoverat.

What is really interesting here is, if the translation can be sustained (and Hodgkin is a very good Latinist) a mention of the loss of the cavalry squadrons and the placement of the infantry in towns as garrisons.

Pick at that one :-))
Roy