The Empire is dead, long live the army

[Justin Swanton]

It not merely didn't join Stilicho, it sat to one side and watched with bland disinterest as Constantine III invaded from Britain, declared himself emperor, and then proceeded to sit on the side lines ignoring the attempts to kick him out again.
Frankly I think that the only thing we can assume is that it didn't exist.
It may well have been that it is on a section of the Notitia that wasn't updated after, say 380AD.

Jim

Just found the relevant passage from Zosimus, Historia Nova, book 6:

When Arcadius was reigning, Honorius being consul the seventh time and Theodosius the second, the troops in Britain revolted and promoted Marcus to the imperial throne, rendering obedience to him as the sovereign in those countries. Some time subsequently, having put him to death for not complying with their inclinations, they set up Gratian, whom they presented with a diadem and a purple robe, and attended him as an emperor. Being disgusted with him likewise, they four months afterwards deposed and murdered him, delivering the empire to Constantine. He having entrusted to Justinian and Nevigastes the command of the Celtic legions, crossed over from Britain. Having arrived at Bononia, which is the nearest to the sea-side, situated in the lower Germany, and continuing there some days, he conciliated the attachment of all the troops between that place and the Alps, which separate Gaul from Italy, thus appearing now secure in the empire.

The sense of the passage is that Constantine himself came to Gaul - leaving his lieutenants in charge of the legions - and gained the support of the troops in Gaul between the Channel and the Alps, which would include the Gallic Palatine Army. This hints at a disaffection between the Palatine Army commander and Stilicho, something which I already suspected.

[Jim Webster]

It not merely didn't join Stilicho, it sat to one side and watched with bland disinterest as Constantine III invaded from Britain, declared himself emperor, and then proceeded to sit on the side lines ignoring the attempts to kick him out again.
Frankly I think that the only thing we can assume is that it didn't exist.
It may well have been that it is on a section of the Notitia that wasn't updated after, say 380AD.

Jim

Just found the relevant passage from Zosimus, Historia Nova, book 6:

When Arcadius was reigning, Honorius being consul the seventh time and Theodosius the second, the troops in Britain revolted and promoted Marcus to the imperial throne, rendering obedience to him as the sovereign in those countries. Some time subsequently, having put him to death for not complying with their inclinations, they set up Gratian, whom they presented with a diadem and a purple robe, and attended him as an emperor. Being disgusted with him likewise, they four months afterwards deposed and murdered him, delivering the empire to Constantine. He having entrusted to Justinian and Nevigastes the command of the Celtic legions, crossed over from Britain. Having arrived at Bononia, which is the nearest to the sea-side, situated in the lower Germany, and continuing there some days, he conciliated the attachment of all the troops between that place and the Alps, which separate Gaul from Italy, thus appearing now secure in the empire.

The sense of the passage is that Constantine himself came to Gaul - leaving his lieutenants in charge of the legions - and gained the support of the troops in Gaul between the Channel and the Alps, which would include the Gallic Palatine Army. This hints at a disaffection between the Palatine Army commander and Stilicho, something which I already suspected.

All it says is that any troops left in Gaul declared for him.
If there was a 30,000 strong field army why wasn't it kicking the Germans back across the Rhine?
This passage is every bit as true if there were fifty thousand men under arms in Gaul, or a couple of thousand.
Certainly it is well known that there was disaffection in Gaul, some of it due to the fact that the Gallic nobility were being frozen out of the top jobs. Previously when Emperors had been based at Trier they'd done very well, but now the Italians were taking the plum posts.

Jim

[Justin Swanton]

He gained the support of enough troops to appear 'now secure in the empire', which suggests a large number. The troops weren't the Rhine garrisons as Stilicho had already taken those. They had to be sizeable contingents in the hinterland, of which the first and foremost was the Field Army quartered at Paris.

Nailing down barbarians who were running amok in many small groups was very difficult to do, even if a large professional army was in the area (keeping in mind it was a very big area). Remember the incursions in the 3rd century. Julian later had success only because the Alamans concentrated their strength in one place. If roving bands kept on the move it would take time to pin them down.

[Jim Webster]

He gained the support of enough troops to appear 'now secure in the empire', which suggests a large number. The troops weren't the Rhine garrisons as Stilicho had already taken those. They had to be sizeable contingents in the hinterland, of which the first and foremost was the Field Army quartered at Paris.

Nailing down barbarians who were running amok in many small groups was very difficult to do, even if a large professional army was in the area (keeping in mind it was a very big area). Remember the incursions in the 3rd century. Julian later had success only because the Alamans concentrated their strength in one place. If roving bands kept on the move it would take time to pin them down.

I'd suggest that Stilicho was unlikely to have stripped the Rhine of garrisons if there were 30K men in a field army. Similarly the argument that you cannot use a field army against small groups doesn't hold water. Read the account of Flavius Theodosius reconquering Britain, where it specifically said his field army swept up all sorts of small parties. A field army can hardly sit and sulk and let the province be destroyed because the barbarians  refuse to play by the rules and fight a big battle.

Obviously it would take time to do it,but it would still be done, it had to be done because if it wasn't done there'd be neither supplies or income to support the field army.

There may be men who claimed to be part of this unit or that unit, whether they were mobile, or more that city guards is moot, they certainly never seem to act as a field army. Aetius and Constantius IInd never seem to have come into contact with a Gallic field army

Jim

Jim

[Justin Swanton]

If we believe the Notitia, then was clearly impossible for Constantine III to seize control of Gaul with any hope of permanent success using only the forces he had available in Britain with a few scraps from Gaul. Looking at the totals in the Notitia on the assumption that the Gallic Field army had somehow ceased to exist:

Constantine:
Comes Britanniae: 3,400 men
Dux Britanniarum: 9,250 men
Surviving forces in Gaul: +/-6,000 men
Total: 18,650 men


Honorius:
Personal command at Ravenna: 3,500 men
Palatine army at Milan: 28,000 men
Comes Africae: 9,000 men
Dux Tripolitanae: 3,500 men
Dux Mauretaniae: 2,000 men
Comes Hispaniae: 10,500 men
Comes Tingitaniae: 2,450 men
Total: 58,950 men

One does not pick a fight at odds like these.

If however Constantine gained the support of the 32,000 man Gallic Field Army, then his total strength rises to 50,650 men, which makes his chances look much more reasonable. Still cause for concern if Honorius could get the forces in Spain and Africa to commit against Constantine, which is something he feared.

[Jim Webster]

The problem is that instead of nearly 59,000 men Stilicho struggled to raise a field army of 30,000 and that was by robbing the frontiers.
Looking at the forces

Honorius:
Personal command at Ravenna: 3,500 men

They're not going to leave Ravenna, they're needed to protect the Emperor from wandering generals with unseemly ambitions.

Palatine army at Milan: 28,000 men

Given that only 30,000 were raised by stripping the frontiers, I beg leave to doubt that there was a 28,000 strong field army sitting waiting to be used

Comes Africae: 9,000 men

They were never going to leave Africa.

Dux Tripolitanae: 3,500 men

Same again, it was unlikely that they could be withdrawn

Dux Mauretaniae: 2,000 men

ditto

Comes Hispaniae: 10,500 men

Given that Constantine managed to conquer Spain, these do not seem to have been an issue. Assuming they existed, they may already have been sounded out and were prepared to change sides.

Comes Tingitaniae: 2,450 men

Again he is unlikely to abandon his province to rush men to Gaul

So looking at the balance of forces, Constantine struck when the central government was busy, he obviously had hopes and expectations for aid from Spain and perhaps beyond the Rhine, and had doubtless sounded out Gaul. He might even have expected to be accepted as a partner Augustus, on the grounds he could restore order in Gaul.

Jim

[aligern]

Must say I cannot see the point of going back beyond Aetius. When Attila invades he collects up every odd group he can get to turn up plus the Alans and Visigoths. These groups must be around equal to the Hun force because we are not told that one side outnumbered the other,.
Before the Chalons campaign Aetius and Litorius use Hund federates against the Goths I am unaware that this is because there is a whacking great Roman army in Gaul that is standing on the sidelines. If there was a substantial Roman force Aetius would have used it. So would Majorian. Justin appears to be asking us to believe that there are 30,000 Trained Roman troops in Gaul who do not answer the  summons of the appropriate magisters or of the emperor himself for a period of 60 years and yet the empire goes on paying them. The Gallic field army looks like it is wrecked in the civil wars of Constantine, the invasion of 406 and three years of war, the Gothic Wars etc.
Like the Norwegian Blue the Gallic field army is dead or, more likely reduced to a couple of thousand men, enough to guard the MM, but not enough to take on a major threat.
Roy

[rodge]

At Arles In 411 the relieving force was comprised of Alamanni and Franks. It is therefore likely that the Rhine frontier was secured with the assistance of barbarian tribes local to the river (Burgundi, Franks and Alamanni ) some, in the case of the Franks, who had resisted the incursion across the Rhine in 405 or 406/7 (note that none of the other tribes joined the barbarian incursion in any appreciable numbers) and Constantine certainly had enough gold coin to pay them. The relief army headed by the Frank Edobich and Gerontius, which raised the siege of Valence and compelled Sarus to retire back to Italy, was a force born out of the Rhine defences and is likely to have had a substantial barbarian contingent.

In 408 Honorius sent a force under Sarus from Italy but, despite initial successes in the Rhone valley, Sarus was soon forced to withdraw by Constantine's magister militum Gerontius. Constantine then went on to occupy all of Gaul up to the Alps.
He also appointed Constans (his son) as Caesar in 408 and sent him into Spain to quell a revolt headed by relatives of Honurious.
This revolt was duly suppressed and the magister militum Gerontius was left in charge in Spain when Constans returned to Gaul.
In 409 Britain revolted against Constantine's rule and Constantine's confidence waned. He wrote to Honorius in late summer 409, asking forgiveness for having seized power and promising help against the Visigoth Alaric in Italy; Honorius recognized him, sent him an imperial robe and possibly granted him the consulate.
Then in late 409 the Vandals, Alans and Suevi, crossed into Spain from Gaul. Gerontius restored control over the situation but then revolted against Constantine and acclaimed Maximus as emperor; control of Britain and Spain was thus lost.
In summer 410 Constantine was faced by the troops from Spain who had invaded Gaul under Gerontius and was besieged at Arles. By now, Gerontius had promoted Maximus (either his son or one of his staff) to the rank of Augustus.
Following Alaric's death, Honorius' general Constantius entered Gaul in 411 and after defeating Gerontius besieged Constantine in Arles. When Constantius ambushed a relieving force under Constantine's magister militum Edobeccus Constantine lost hope; he relinquished the purple, took refuge in a church and was ordained before surrendering to Constantius.
Constantine was then sent to Italy, but was murdered before he reached Honorius. His head was sent to Ravenna where it was exhibited.
So, what did he occupy up to the Alps with? I think a large proportion could well have been 'barbarian troops' ...

[Justin Swanton]

Justin appears to be asking us to believe that there are 30,000 Trained Roman troops in Gaul who do not answer the  summons of the appropriate magisters or of the emperor himself for a period of 60 years and yet the empire goes on paying them.
Roy

No, I'm not saying that. My contention is that the Roman army in Gaul, at whatever size it was reduced to, kept its professional and Roman character all the way to Syagrius. The fact that there is not a constant record of a 'Gallic Palatine Army' from the Notitia until 486 does not mean it did not exist, as the historical documents tended to talk about armies only when they fought major battles. My last couple of posts is an attempt to deduce the existence of the Gallic Field Army during Stilicho and Constantine's time even though it is not explicitly mentioned in the contemporary texts (except the Notitia of course).

On the subject of Gallic Army under Aetius, this extract from Wiki might be of interest:

A better sense of the size of the forces may be found in the study of the Notitia Dignitatum by A.H.M. Jones.[29] This document is a list of officials and military units that was last updated in the first decades of the 5th century. Notitia Dignitatum lists 58 various regular units, and 33 limitanei serving either in the Gallic provinces or on the frontiers nearby; the total of these units, based on Jones analysis, is 34,000 for the regular units and 11,500 for the limitanei, or just under 46,000 all told. However, this figure is the estimate for the year 425 A.D. The regular Roman field army present at the battle may have numbered around 22,500 men if one accounts for paper strength, attrition, and other factors. The federates would have been far greater in number, possibly between 20,000 and 50,000 men. While the Roman forces in Gaul had become much smaller by this time, if we accept this number as the total of all of the forces fighting with Theodoric and Aëtius, one should not be too far off. Assuming that the Hunnic forces were roughly the same size as the Romano-Gothic, the number involved in battle is around 100,000 combatants in total. This excludes the inevitable servants and camp followers who usually escape mention.'

[Patrick Waterson]

If there was a substantial Roman force Aetius would have used it. So would Majorian.

The Wikipedia entry on Aegidius is interesting:

When Avitus had been deposed—then killed—by Ricimer, Majorian became the new emperor. One of his first acts was to replace comes Agrippinus with Aegidius, who then accused his predecessor of various kinds of treachery. Allegedly, Agrippinus was sent to Rome where he was tried and sentenced to death, but managed to escape prison, gain a pardon from the Emperor, returned to Gaul "exalted with honours." As a result, the two became rivals.

Next Majorian overawed with force the Visigoths of southern Gaul and their neighbors the Burgundians. Aegidius assisted this effort, marching down the Rhone, his troops burning and pillaging as they advanced, and he seized Lyons in 458, then in the next year allowed the Goths to encircle him at Arles. "The Goths thought that they were supposed to perform the usual federate ritual outside the walls of the Gallic capital," writes Wolfram, "but they were rudely awakened from their daydreaming by an attack of Majorian and the 'Frankish' Aegidius."

However, relations between Ricimer and Majorian soured; when Majorian's campaign in Hispania against the Vandals proved unsuccessful Ricimer deposed him (461), murdering another Emperor, replacing him with Libius Severus. Aegidius refused to recognize Ricimer's new figurehead, Separated from Ricimer and Severus in Northern Gaul by the Visigoths and Burgunds, Aegidius was safe from any direct response they might make. Ricimer did accept as a supporter Aegidius' rival Agrippinus, whom contemporaries claimed betrayed Narbonne to the Visigoths in return for their help. Aegidius was soon drawn into a war with the Visigoths; Hugh Elton suggests that Ricimer's puppet Emperor Severus had bribed the Visigoths to go to war against Aegidius.

Aegidius struck back by attacking Orleans with the help of Childeric, and the brother of king Theoderic, Frideric, was killed in the fighting. However, Aegidius did not press his victory; Elton speculates that Aegidius' attention was distracted by "increasing conflict with various Frankish groups on the north-eastern frontier or lack of resources." Hilton notes that Aegidius had other rivals beyond the Visgoths he needed to confront: there were Saxons in the Loire valley, Bretons under Riothamus who fought the Visigoths, "sometimes in co-operation with the Italian imperial Romans", and other Roman factions led by the comites Paul and Arbogast.

Aegidius' force was apparently instrumental in Majorian's successes against the Burgundians and Visigoths.  Interestingly enough, in Imperium Romanum II, the Majorian scenario does not provide any forces for the Domain of Soissons (it just does not assign Lugdunensis to any power) and the Roman player has an uphill struggle to achieve half of what Majorian accomplished.

Now this does not tell us the size of Aegidius' army (or that of the opposition), but it does suggest that the Domain of Soissons was instrumental, perhaps decisive, in Majorian's successes.  What we can glean from this is that Aegidius fielded a respectable force, and when Syagrius inherited it he used it successfully against the Saxons of the Loire, with Frankish assistance.

"While these things were happening a great war was waged between the Saxons and the Romans.  The Saxons fled and many of their men were cut down by the Romans who pursued them.  Their islands were captured and laid waste by the Franks." - Gregory of Tours II.18

Who were these 'Romans'?

My contention is that the Roman army in Gaul, at whatever size it was reduced to, kept its professional and Roman character all the way to Syagrius.

As it existed under a Magister Militum, then another Magister Militum and his son, I see this as reasonable even without Procopius' remarks being taken into consideration.

[Justin Swanton]

The problem is that instead of nearly 59,000 men Stilicho struggled to raise a field army of 30,000 and that was by robbing the frontiers.
Looking at the forces

Honorius:
Personal command at Ravenna: 3,500 men

They're not going to leave Ravenna, they're needed to protect the Emperor from wandering generals with unseemly ambitions.

If his throne depends on it he will use them. That's what they're there for - to protect him from wandering generals with unseemly ambitions like Constantine III.

Palatine army at Milan: 28,000 men

Given that only 30,000 were raised by stripping the frontiers, I beg leave to doubt that there was a 28,000 strong field army sitting waiting to be used

The figures in the Notitia for Italy and the Rhine frontier appear to represent the situation after the Rhine had been stripped of troops to augment the forces in Italy, i.e. the 28,000 men corresponds neatly to the 30,000 men Stilicho eventually managed to assemble.

Comes Africae: 9,000 men

They were never going to leave Africa.

Why not? The record shows that Africa stayed loyal to Honorius.

Dux Tripolitanae: 3,500 men

Same again, it was unlikely that they could be withdrawn

Again, why not?

Dux Mauretaniae: 2,000 men

ditto

Not if the emperor was fighting for his life. "Send your men. You won't? Then you're a traitor." Who do you back - an emperor with 60 000 men or an upstart with 18 000?

Comes Hispaniae: 10,500 men

Given that Constantine managed to conquer Spain, these do not seem to have been an issue. Assuming they existed, they may already have been sounded out and were prepared to change sides.

They did not change sides. Constantine was in a position similar to Napoleon: surrounded by larger but separated forces. Rather than wait for them to gang up on him, he decided to defeat them in detail first, starting with Spain. But for that he needed decisive local superiority, which 18 000 men, a large part committed to shoring up the Rhine frontier, was not going to give him.

Comes Tingitaniae: 2,450 men

Again he is unlikely to abandon his province to rush men to Gaul

Would he have had a choice?

So looking at the balance of forces, Constantine struck when the central government was busy, he obviously had hopes and expectations for aid from Spain and perhaps beyond the Rhine, and had doubtless sounded out Gaul. He might even have expected to be accepted as a partner Augustus, on the grounds he could restore order in Gaul.

Jim

He had the support of Gaul, or more exactly, of important Roman forces in Gaul, and that's what gave him confidence that he could lay hold of the entire western Empire, something he was never going to do with 18 000 men.

[Jim Webster]

Just a couple of things. Remember that a lot of Stilicho's men were barbarians who changed sides when he was murdered. So I wouldn't regard the 28,000 field army as being too closely related to the 30,000 men that Stilicho had

As for pulling men out of Africa, that was Rome (and Italy's corn supply). Yes it stayed loyal, and because it was loyal, Honorius remained Emperor. He could cope with Visigoths rampaging around Italy, because they'd eventually have to leave. But if he didn't control Africa he was screwed. He couldn't feed italy and they'd get someone who could. Remember the effort he went to to retake Africa.
Also there is the logistics. Firstly getting the men to agree to leave, secondly getting the shipping to do it. Those who invaded from Africa later seem to have used the bucellarii only and the amount of shipping was huge.  Same with the other African troops
1) Would they leave africa or like Julian's men would they proclaim their own general as Emperor so they could stay.
2) How many men were there anyway, I think you're assuming full strength units.
3) Logistics, by the time they'd got the shipping organised it would be too late anyway. Ironically Africa had the best logistics but ship troops and you cannot ship grain and that is bad news for Italy and the Emperor

And it isn't an Emperor with 60K men and a usurper with 18K. At various times the Usurper was recognised as a proper Augustus, the 60K men assumes full strength units, and most of them are busy where they are.
This 60K men is as fanciful as a 30K field army in Gaul which leaves no mark on history, but after 406AD it seems to exist purely a bureaucratic construct on paper

Jim

[rodge]

It might be worth considering the numbers of troops that could have possibly been involved at Soissons to give a bit of perspective on the debate. This does mean working backwards from 496 but I am unaware of any further information.

MacGeorge has a footnote in her chapter about the military force of Aegidius and Syagrius; at the Baptism of Clovis (Christmas 496) Gregory states (History II.31) that 3000 of his men were baptised alongside Clovis and in the 9th C work of Hincmar of Reims 'Vita Regmigii' he says that about half of the Frankish warriors were baptised.

Working on those source numbers that would give a force of circa 6000.

Allowing for literary inflation of 10% would give us 5400 men, at 20% 4800 men etc.

This possible total was after Clovis had killed Chararic (and probably absorbed some of his troops) and had allied with other Frankish sub-kings in order to tackle the Thuringians in 491AD and the Alemanni in 496AD.

So the number in 486 could quite possibly have been a lot lower than 6000 or 5400 or 4800 etc.

Assuming (on the generous side) 4000 men in 486 (including Ragnachar's troops that fought with Clovis at Soissons) we have a possible number to compare with Syagrius' own numbers (4000 of Clovis' troops plus or minus Chararic's men who were there but did not take part).

Clovis issued his challenge to Syagrius and Syagrius accepted the challenge, leaving the relative safety of Soissons taking the field confident of his chances and his army so was confident as we are told.

If his confidence came from his parity (he also may well have been confident of their quality or dismissive of his opponent's quality), or advantage of numbers, at around 4000 men how was this force made up ?

1000 Bucellarii, perhaps 1000 Gallo-Roman Estate troops, 1000 Limitanei etc. and ex- Comitatenses Franks and 1000 remnants of the real Army of Gaul?

I think there is general agreement that Syagrius had military support other than just a standing Roman Army of Gaul force.
So how large was the Roman part of this force out of 4000? 1000 men? 2000?
That does not suggest the type of Roman Army being currently discussed unless I'm missing something.

And if Syagrius' force was much larger than 4000 and had more 'Roman' troops in it (and it lost) does that not suggest that (if they were primarily Roman regulars or their ilk) that they were not really up to much?

At least it would not be the powerful Roman force that has been discussed?

[Justin Swanton]

The 6000 troops are more likely Clovis's personal warriors from his tribe at Tournai, rather than the entire Frankish army that had confronted Syagrius at Soissons.

At this time the Franks were not yet organised into a single cohesive kingdom, but were a loose confederation of tribes under chieftains several of whom were linked by ties of blood. This confederation was tenuous, as shown by Chararic's ability to sit out the Battle of Soissons without fearing an immediate retribution from Clovis. When Clovis was baptized it would have been in a personal capacity, without the involvement of the other Frankish chieftains. Clovis did not have the power to be able to tell the warriors of his allied chiefs which religion to belong to. He barely had enough prestige to get some of his own warriors to follow him in his conversion.

The death of Ragacar is put at 509, well after the conversion of Clovis, which indicates that the Franks were far from being consolidated by Clovis in 496.

Extrapolating from this interpretion, one can posit that Clovis at Soissons had something like 20,000 warriors: his 6000 plus another 15 - 20,000 supplied by his allied chiefs. This corresponds to the numbers the Alamans, a roughly equivalent people, had at Argentoratum. Syagrius had to meet this with an army of at least 10,000 men of markedly superior quality.

[Patrick Waterson]

Inclined to agree.  Good idea, Rodge, and nicely spotted, but not so sure about concluding that the 6,000 included every Frank in Clovis' domains.

Agathias has 75,000 Franks and Alamanni cross into Italy in 553, the first stage of a campaign leading to Narses' famous victory at Casilinum.  During this campaign the Franks, apparently numbering around 30,000, split off and did their own thing, getting whittled down by high living and disease to perhaps 20,000 before eventually meeting up with Narses' 18,000 or so and getting trounced at Casilinum.

These 30,000 could not have been the whole strength of the Franks as of 553, otherwise there would have been nobody left at home to maintain the Frankish kingdom.  Enough fighting men had to stay behind to avoid the Franks becoming history at the hands of their neighbours, suggesting a total fighting establishment of at least another 20,000 or so who did not come to Italy.

I would thus be more inclined to go with Justin's estimate of c.20,000 for Clovis' army at Soissons.