Quality of the Roman Soldiers of Procopius

[Justin Swanton]

Having a particular interest in very late Roman Antiquity, I have paid close attention to this passage from Procopius's Histories XII:

Now other Roman soldiers, also, had been stationed at the frontiers of Gaul to serve as guards. And these soldiers, having no means of returning to Rome, and at the same time being unwilling to yield to their enemy who were Arians, gave themselves, together with their military standards and the land which they had long been guarding for the Romans, to the Arborychi and Germans; and they handed down to their offspring all the customs of their fathers, which were thus preserved, and this people has held them in sufficient reverence to guard them even up to my time.

I draw several conclusions from this passage:

1. These were troops who were stationed in the former Roman provinces of Syagrius. The context of the passage makes this clear.

2. They were fiercely proud of their 'Romanity', to the point of substantially keeping their 5th century equipment, uniforms and mode of fighting. This was a very conservative epoch, and the Roman troops, maintained by a rich and militarised Gallo-roman nobility, had no reason to start looking and acting like barbarians. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that this region of Gaul preserved intact the structures of Gallo-roman society, evidenced by the wills of rich landowners in the following centuries.

3. They were good-quality troops. They were 'held in sufficient reverence' by 'this people', the fused Gallo-roman and Frankish populations of the area. 'Arborychi' = Armoricans, or Gallo-roman inhabitants of the domain of Syagrius. 'Germans' = Franks. The 'Arians' are the Visigoths to the south.

Does anyone have any relevant data that either confirms or refutes these conclusions?

[aligern]

 I dwelt on this for a while Justin and would like to start with a question.  What is Procopius telling us here?  What was he likely to have known of these soldiers and why is he telling us about them? Is he using a written source ?
Procopius is not particularly well informed about Gaul or Spain, indeed the Byzantines (Romans) are not that well informed about Vandal Africa because Belisarius arrives in Sicily and then starts asking.

What is the evidence that Roman soldiers were maintained by the Gallic aristocracy??  Is there any corroboration? (BTW I'd agree  that there is some) . There is certainly some non corroborative evidence from the Life of Saint Severinus.
Have you read Bachrach's various works around this subject?

We need you to tell us a bit more.

Roy

[Justin Swanton]

I dwelt on this for a while Justin and would like to start with a question.  What is Procopius telling us here?  What was he likely to have known of these soldiers and why is he telling us about them? Is he using a written source ?
Procopius is not particularly well informed about Gaul or Spain, indeed the Byzantines (Romans) are not that well informed about Vandal Africa because Belisarius arrives in Sicily and then starts asking.

What is the evidence that Roman soldiers were maintained by the Gallic aristocracy??  Is there any corroboration? (BTW I'd agree  that there is some) . There is certainly some non corroborative evidence from the Life of Saint Severinus.
Have you read Bachrach's various works around this subject?

We need you to tell us a bit more.

Roy

The passage about the Roman units that kept their identity up to Procopius' own time comes at the end of a description of the war between the realm of Syagrius and the Franks, which finally ended in peace when Clovis was baptized in 496/7. Procopius, who accompanied Belisarius into Italy, may have seen these troops as part of the Frankish invasion force into Italy (I need to confirm the dates of that). Certainly he would have heard about them since they were the last traces of the old Western Empire's military machine, and were seen as remarkable in their own time.

Piecing together Gregory of Tour's Historia, Procopius, the Liber Historiae Francorum of the 8th century, and the Golden Thread of St Genovefa, it is possible to reconstruct a picture of the events. I have written an article on the subject which at present is in Mark's hands. Briefly, Syagrius and Clovis went to war in 486 when Syagrius revoked Clovis's federate control of Belgica II. Syagrius was rapidly beaten and deposed, but the war dragged on for another ten years, during which time Paris was under siege, on and off. The Gallo-roman troops of Syagrius's provinces stopped Clovis dead in his tracks, the only one of his enemies who succeeded in doing so. After his conversion and peace the Franks and Gallo-romans gradually fused into a single people.

Procopius is careful with his Gallic nomenclature - he uses generic terms if he is not quite sure about specific locations. One senses he has a grasp of the overall picture but not of the details. Syagrius and Clovis go to war because the 'Arborychi" (=Armoricans, dwellers of Syagrius's realm) 'changed their government'. No explanation is given for this and probably Procopius did not have one - he did not understand the detail of the politics in that corner of the world at that time. This being the case, I feel one can trust him when he does commit himself to something.

Chris Wickham's excellent Framing the Early Middle Ages establishes that the Gallo-roman aristocracy of nothern Gaul became militarised early in the 5th century, partly because that area remained under direct imperial control and partly because it was near the traditional barbarian hotspots. Large-scale landowning remained intact but country villas went to the wall since the aristocrats there had no use for them, unlike their colleagues in the south who had the money, time (and lack of anything else to do) to spend in cultured otium.

[Duncan Head]

This is not really my period, and I venture into it with some trepidation.  Justin wrote:

These were troops who were stationed in the former Roman provinces of Syagrius. The context of the passage makes this clear.

I'm not completely sure it does. Procopius says these were "other" Roman soldiers - "other", that is, than the Arborychi/Armoricans, who are the subject of the previous paragraph. Indeed, he says that these "other" soldiers "gave themselves, together with their military standards and the land which they had long been guarding for the Romans, to the Arborychi and Germans". Now, Justin suggests that " 'Arborychi' = Armoricans, or Gallo-roman inhabitants of the domain of Syagrius". So where was "the land which they [the "other" Romans] had long been guarding"? If they gave it to the Armoricans, surely it cannot have been the land which was the Armoricans' already? Doesn't Procopius' wording suggest that they had been garrisoning some other part of Gaul entirely?

Justin says:

Procopius, who accompanied Belisarius into Italy, may have seen these troops as part of the Frankish invasion force into Italy

But there seems to be no indication of any Roman presence in Procopius' description of the Frankish armies in Italy; which casts doubt on this suggestion, and may be why Edward James in The Franks castigates Procopius as an unreliable witness in the context of this passage.

I'm sure Justin's read it, but for others who may be interested, Bernard Bachrach's article "Procopius and the Chronology of Clovis' Reign" is online at http://tinyurl.com/b2b5yt2. He defends Procopius against the interpretations of Ferdinand Lot, and particularly on pp.24-25 defends the idea that Roman units may still have existed in Gaul at the time. Also interesting is Howard Wiseman's "A British Legion stationed near Orléans c. 530?" at http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/wiseman/DECB/Wiseman-Dalmas-JAEMA.pdf. He sees these "other Roman soldiers" as Syagrius' men but sees the Arborychi as "Armorican Britons", which is probably wrong.

Perhaps we should identify these "other Roman soldiers" with the Ripariolibriones (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=217.75) of the Catalaunian thread?

[Justin Swanton]

This is not really my period, and I venture into it with some trepidation.  Justin wrote:

These were troops who were stationed in the former Roman provinces of Syagrius. The context of the passage makes this clear.

I'm not completely sure it does. Procopius says these were "other" Roman soldiers - "other", that is, than the Arborychi/Armoricans, who are the subject of the previous paragraph. Indeed, he says that these "other" soldiers "gave themselves, together with their military standards and the land which they had long been guarding for the Romans, to the Arborychi and Germans". Now, Justin suggests that " 'Arborychi' = Armoricans, or Gallo-roman inhabitants of the domain of Syagrius". So where was "the land which they [the "other" Romans] had long been guarding"? If they gave it to the Armoricans, surely it cannot have been the land which was the Armoricans' already? Doesn't Procopius' wording suggest that they had been garrisoning some other part of Gaul entirely?

The political context makes that very unlikely. By 496, the only candidate for lands being guarded for the Romans were the four provinces formerly under the control of Syagrius: Lugdunensis II, Lugdunensis III, Lugdunensis IV Senonia, and Belgica II (though by this time Belgica II was under Frankish control). Everywhere else in the former Western Empire was under direct barbarian control.

Starting from the fact of a militarised aristocracy in northern Gaul, with each aristocrat in control of a personal band of bucellari (many of them former units of the imperial army), one has a quasi independent Roman territory that founds its ruling authority on its legitimacy, i.e. on the fact that it represents Roman power in the area. It is this legitimacy that enabled Syagrius to make Clovis a federate ally by granting him the administration of Belgica II as indicated in a letter to Clovis by Remigius.

Once Syagrius was deposed the local aristocracy retained its legitimacy and its authority, but without any central personage stepping forward to take the place of the former governor. The ten-year war between Clovis and the Gallo-romans would have been a very complex and localised affair, with some aristocrats taking an active part and others not, depending on how they were affected. A bit like the Marcher wars in Wales. Once peace was made between the Franks and the principal leaders of the Gallo-roman resistance it remained for the other Gallo-roman VIPs to accept the new status quo, and join the new order with their troops, the 'other soldiers' guarding their lands for the Romans.

'Arborychi' is a vague term comprising a complex reality. It may even include the Breton sub-kingdoms in the Armorican peninsula who seem to have been part of the final peace treaty in that they were granted and accepted a semi-autonomous status.

Justin says:

Procopius, who accompanied Belisarius into Italy, may have seen these troops as part of the Frankish invasion force into Italy

But there seems to be no indication of any Roman presence in Procopius' description of the Frankish armies in Italy; which casts doubt on this suggestion, and may be why Edward James in The Franks castigates Procopius as an unreliable witness in the context of this passage.

I'm not sure that Procopius did see any Roman units with the Frankish armies. They need not have formed part of the invasion forces. The Frankish kings may not have trusted them or felt they needed them for a foreign campaign. The point though is that he is emphatic about their existence. People in his time were talking about them, a quasi-miraculous survival from the past.

I'm sure Justin's read it, but for others who may be interested, Bernard Bachrach's article "Procopius and the Chronology of Clovis' Reign" is online at http://tinyurl.com/b2b5yt2. He defends Procopius against the interpretations of Ferdinand Lot, and particularly on pp.24-25 defends the idea that Roman units may still have existed in Gaul at the time. Also interesting is Howard Wiseman's "A British Legion stationed near Orléans c. 530?" at http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/wiseman/DECB/Wiseman-Dalmas-JAEMA.pdf. He sees these "other Roman soldiers" as Syagrius' men but sees the Arborychi as "Armorican Britons", which is probably wrong.

I hadn't read Bachrach's article in fact, but thank you for directing me to it.

[Duncan Head]

I'm not sure that Procopius did see any Roman units with the Frankish armies. They need not have formed part of the invasion forces. The Frankish kings may not have trusted them or felt they needed them for a foreign campaign. The point though is that he is emphatic about their existence. People in his time were talking about them, a quasi-miraculous survival from the past.

But if Procopius didn't see them first-hand, but only heard of them somehow, his testimony immediately becomes less trustworthy - his famous unreliability about the West comes into play. Yes, such Gallo-Roman troops no doubt existed, but if Procopius only knew of them at second- or third-hand, his account of the events of the previous century may not be reliable in detail. Hence,

It is obviously tempting to equate the Roman soldiers of the second paragraph with remnants of the Gallic army, or the forces of Aegidius and Syagrius, but the most that one can safely say is that reports of them may have contributed to the hearsay that reached Procopius.

- MacGeorge, Late Roman Warlords, p.122.

So can we be sure of the details that suggest that "the other Roman soldiers" were Syagrius' troops? Probably not. There were some ex-Roman troops in northern Gaul in the last decades of the fifth century, probably: surely that's as far as we can really go?

[aligern]

 I am speaking from memory here, but the tenor of what Gregory of Tours says about the Gallo Roman troops that set out to help the Visigoth AlaricII in 507 is that there were  troops that may have claimed a Roman identity in the Auvergne. My recollection of the campaigns that followed Vouille is that these troops might well have survived despite casualties at Vouille.
There is also a letter of Cassiodorus that refers to Limitanei in the reign of Theoderic the Great.  I think the Limitanei and the 'Old Germans ' who may have had a federate relationship with the Empire, then Odoacer, then Theoderic  are referred to. These Limitanei are not in Gaul, but to the East, but that doesn't preclude there being surviving Limitanei to the west.

I looked at Procopius' possibly being an eyewitness to the Franks first invasion of Italy when thinking about the reliability of his statements on the use of Franciscae. I doubt that he saw them, but he could certainly have conversed with commanders who did and thus he could have obtained information about the composition of the Frankish or more properly Burgundian force.  If these Romans were with the Burgundo-Frank troops why did he not say?  If they were 'Romans' then why did Belisarius not offer them a transfer to his command?

Have you looked at the campaigns of Mummolus in the 560s-70s.  He is a  commander in the area of Burgundy and resists  Lombard invasions (its in Gregory of Tours) . I just wonder whether Roman troops that Procopius would have heard of were  in the Provincia of Gaul. That area of SE France is the area that a Roman would have called Gaul. The troops would have been positioned against the Visigoths by Odoacer, taken over by Theoderic after 507 and then into the Burgundian 'kingdom' after 536.   That doesn't explain 'Arborychi', but it gives a rationale as to why they might have been in contact with Romans in Italy in 536?? As garrison troops they might fight in defence, but not partake in an invasion of Italy.
I really thought that Syagrius territory and warband were annexed by Clovis who used the accession of strength to then enlarge his kingdom by overaweing the other Franks.

Roy

[Justin Swanton]

I'm not sure that Procopius did see any Roman units with the Frankish armies. They need not have formed part of the invasion forces. The Frankish kings may not have trusted them or felt they needed them for a foreign campaign. The point though is that he is emphatic about their existence. People in his time were talking about them, a quasi-miraculous survival from the past.

But if Procopius didn't see them first-hand, but only heard of them somehow, his testimony immediately becomes less trustworthy - his famous unreliability about the West comes into play. Yes, such Gallo-Roman troops no doubt existed, but if Procopius only knew of them at second- or third-hand, his account of the events of the previous century may not be reliable in detail.

My reading of Procopius gives me the impression of a careful historian who does not affirm what he is not sure of, and uses general terms if he does not have specific information. Having done a little checking up, it seems it was Theudebert I who invaded Italy. Theudebert was king of Austrasia, or northeastern Gaul. The former lands of Syagrius were in Neustria to the west. The 'other soldiers' would have been situated in that area, and hence not under Theudebert's control.

Procopius could have had a reliable knowledge of the ex-Syagrian Roman units without having seen them personally. Several converging eyewitness accounts and a general contemporary awareness of them. I notice that things that are not established as fact he affirms as not being established, but he is very emphatic about the existence of these troops, almost as if he knew the lector would have difficulty believing it.

[Justin Swanton]

Rereading Procopius's account, I get the impression he did see these 'other soldiers' himself.

Here is a hypothetical scenario: Childebert I, uncle of Theudebert, ruled the area containing Syagrius's former realm. Belisarius's reconquest of North Africa and Italy got everybody's attention. After Italy the next logical target for the Byzantine general would have been Gaul. At the time of Theudebert's intervention Childebert may have decided to send an embassy to Belisarius which included a contingent of Roman soldiers - to demonstrate that the Gallo-romans got along fine with the Franks, thank you very much, and didn't need to be liberated.

This is of course only a hypothesis, but it make the point that Procopius could have seen the Roman soldiers without having written them into his military account.

[aligern]

Is there any record of Belisarius meeting a Frankish embassy?  If he did it was more likely composed of churchmen (Gallo Roman nobles) and a count or two with their doruphoroi.  If P had seen Roman soldiers he would say so when he made the remark about them because that's the sort of chap he was, ever keen to make an Herodotean aside on culture or ethnicity.
Procopius is a greatretailer of stories such as the visit of the emperor Majorian to Carthage in disguise and also a great pumper up of his own contribution, sich as his learned advice on trumpets at Auximum  or his finding of a merchant  to act as a local guide to Africa whilst the African expedition was in Sicily.

The next logical phase of reconquest after Africa was surely Spain which is where Justinian actually went with the same strategy he had in Africa and then Italy i.e, exploiting dissension in the barbarian ruling group. Clovis  inheritance structure had provided a nice divide in Gaul so it would have been easy to  pick a fight. However, he didn't do this and I suggest that is because Gaul is not economically or  emotionally important to the Romans.  Africa had the wealth and Rome the prestige and above all the barbarians there and in Spain were small in number and  not well aligned to the Roman population. Gaul, however, had very nasty barbarians in great numbers because Germany was next door, gaul mattered less economically and is quite hard to conquer from Italy. In fact I don't think that an army has ever advanced from Italy to conquer France. (Caesar started in Gaul) .

So I very much doubt that Procopius met Roman descended soldiers in Italy.  It would make an interesting novel though!
Roy

[Justin Swanton]

Is there any record of Belisarius meeting a Frankish embassy?  If he did it was more likely composed of churchmen (Gallo Roman nobles) and a count or two with their doruphoroi.  If P had seen Roman soldiers he would say so when he made the remark about them because that's the sort of chap he was, ever keen to make an Herodotean aside on culture or ethnicity.

Or possibly a private visit by a Gallo-roman nobleman and his armed escort. Not important enough to make the military record but the occasion for Procopius to see these 'Roman' soldiers close up.

It's just that the comment about the shoes makes me think Procopius had a soldier before him, whom he looked up and down. "Gosh, that looks familiar, and that!"

At the very least there is no reason for Procopius not to have met reliable eyewitnesses who could have described the situation in northern Gaul to him. Somebody talked to him, as his description of the war between Clovis and the domain of Syagrius is quite accurate in its general details.

Procopius is a greatretailer of stories such as the visit of the emperor Majorian to Carthage in disguise and also a great pumper up of his own contribution, sich as his learned advice on trumpets at Auximum  or his finding of a merchant  to act as a local guide to Africa whilst the African expedition was in Sicily.

Yes, but that doesn't mean his stories were fabrications. My impression of him is that he is not gullible or creative, but takes care that what he affirms is to the best of his knowledge the truth.

The next logical phase of reconquest after Africa was surely Spain which is where Justinian actually went with the same strategy he had in Africa and then Italy i.e, exploiting dissension in the barbarian ruling group. Clovis  inheritance structure had provided a nice divide in Gaul so it would have been easy to  pick a fight. However, he didn't do this and I suggest that is because Gaul is not economically or  emotionally important to the Romans.  Africa had the wealth and Rome the prestige and above all the barbarians there and in Spain were small in number and  not well aligned to the Roman population. Gaul, however, had very nasty barbarians in great numbers because Germany was next door, gaul mattered less economically and is quite hard to conquer from Italy. In fact I don't think that an army has ever advanced from Italy to conquer France. (Caesar started in Gaul) .

All quite true. It would follow that besides Theudebert the Frankish kings would have had little motivation to treat with Belisarius. Theudebert along with the Burgundians were in fact their buffer.

So I very much doubt that Procopius met Roman descended soldiers in Italy.  It would make an interesting novel though!
Roy

As part of a Frankish embassy, no. As part of a private Gallo-roman visit, perhaps.

[Patrick Waterson]

The next logical phase of reconquest after Africa was surely Spain which is where Justinian actually went with the same strategy he had in Africa and then Italy i.e, exploiting dissension in the barbarian ruling group. Clovis  inheritance structure had provided a nice divide in Gaul so it would have been easy to  pick a fight. However, he didn't do this and I suggest that is because Gaul is not economically or  emotionally important to the Romans.  Africa had the wealth and Rome the prestige and above all the barbarians there and in Spain were small in number and  not well aligned to the Roman population. Gaul, however, had very nasty barbarians in great numbers because Germany was next door, gaul mattered less economically and is quite hard to conquer from Italy. In fact I don't think that an army has ever advanced from Italy to conquer France. (Caesar started in Gaul) .

Would Justinian have avoided trying for Gaul because he deemed it not worth the candle?  He indeed had a go at Spain, albeit not a very effective one, and there I think the spirit was willing but the forces were weak.  This (plus a spot of bother with the Lombards) I would see as the main reason why he did not try for Gaul.

If we want an army advancing from Italy to conquer Gaul, we could count Septimius Severus in AD 197, Aurelian sorting out Tetricus' followers in AD 274 or Theodosius clobbering Eugenius (or Arbogast) at the Frigidus in AD 394.  I leave out Constantine II, Maximus Magnus and Constantius III, all of whom lost Gaul to an Italy-based rival (although in the latter case Honorius did not meaningfully get it back).

Limiting it to France, the best I can offer is Anvil-Dragoon in 1944 - a bit out of period. 


Patrick

[Erpingham]

Limiting it to France, the best I can offer is Anvil-Dragoon in 1944 - a bit out of period. 


Patrick

Napoleon and the Hundred Days? Elba is in Italy, isn't it? 

[Justin Swanton]

Come to think of it, Gaul, especially northern Gaul, was relatively prosperous in this period. It had not degenerated into a state of anarchy or near-anarchy as had Britain or parts of Spain and north Africa. The economic centre of Western Europe in the centuries to come would shift to northern Gaul/Rhineland and stay there. I imagine that had Belisarius had more time and resources he would have had a crack at Frankish Gaul. His contemporaries certainly would have had the same thought.

[Patrick Waterson]

Limiting it to France, the best I can offer is Anvil-Dragoon in 1944 - a bit out of period. 

Patrick

Napoleon and the Hundred Days? Elba is in Italy, isn't it?

Strictly speaking, yes: it is 12 miles off the coast of Tuscany so is just within the usual 'territorial waters' limit.

Of course, both of these 'successful' invasions came by sea and did not involve Italian troops so might be outside Roy's intended frame of reference.