(11-23-2015, 10:23 AM)Robert Vermaat Wrote: It's not Always easy to discern the details of a 'barbarian band' and a 'barbarian leader'... We might equally deal with men who became leaders after first doing several tours with the Roman army...
Yes, there is a marked difference, I think, between the earlier type of barbarian troops and the later post-Adrianople 'foederati' arrangement, and with their leaders too. But we should remember that, even before Adrianople, Rome was enlisting large bodies of barbarians - the Saracens who ended up defending Constantinople, for example.
There's an interesting crossover period, though, around the later 3rd to the mid 4th century. At the beginning of this period we have what appear to be barbarian groups serving, probably under their own native leaders, as temporary auxiliary forces in field armies. By the end of the period the 'barbarians' (mainly Franks and Alamanni) are present in the regular army and officer corps in large numbers.
An example of this change might be Silvanus and his father Bonitus. Silvanus first appears as
tribunus scholae armaturum in 351, changing sides at the battle of Mursa. He went on to become
Magister Peditum in Gaul, apparently at a very young age, before being acclaimed emperor in 355 and being assassinated by Constantius's agents shortly afterwards.
Aurelius Victor (Caesars 42.15) tells us that Silvanus was 'born in Gaul of barbarian parents, of the military class' (
in Gallia ortus barbaris parentibus ordine militiae). Ammianus Marcellinus (15.5.32) mentions "the valiant deeds of [Silvanus's] father Bonitus, a Frank it is true, but one who in the civil war often fought vigorously on the side of Constantine against the soldiers of Licinius."
Silvanus apparently retained links with the Franks on the far side of the Rhine, and considered fleeing to them in 355, but one of his officers (another Frank) told him he'd be put to death: either the trans-fluvial Franks did not care for their cousins in Roman service, or for usurpers, or both!
But for Silvanus to be 'born in Gaul' his father Bonitus (a 'barbarian') must either have been a miliitary officer already serving in the Roman army, or (perhaps more likely, given the early date) the leader of a group of Frankish
laeti or similar who had recently settled in Gaul. Either way, he appears to have been a senior commander - perhaps of Frankish troops - in Constantine's army in c.316-324. Bonitus's son could have been born c.320, and perhaps given a place in the
protectores domestici as a reward for his father's service, which would have offered a fast track to higher command at a young age.
One interesting point, of course, is that both men had 'Roman' names - if our sources had not told us otherwise, we'd have assumed they were native-born Romans!