Terms of service for late Roman foederati

[Justin I]

I have a few questions about the foederati serving in the Roman army during the late 4th and early 5th centuries.

Was there a specific length of time these soldiers were always required to serve, or were different tribes offered different terms on an ad hoc basis?

Were the foederati equipped from the state arsenals? Could they bring their own equipment if so desired?

Could these men become Roman citizens after their service ended? And let's say a Roman woman and a foederati soldier had a child together... could they get married?
Could the half-barbarian, half-Roman child of this hypothetical couple inherit the mother's property?

The last three questions are the ones I'm most interested in. Thanks.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Justin,

Was there a specific length of time these soldiers were always required to serve, or were different tribes offered different terms on an ad hoc basis?

They served in the Roman army as regular troops, under the treaty (foedus) which stipulated that their group had to provide men for the army. Would would indicate that their term of service equaled that of regular troops.

Of course, when we get later in the 4th century, tribes could enter the Empire wholesale and serve under their kings. With these groups, it was different, as they were much more independent. The men were not spread out over the army, and would only have fought when called upon.

Were the foederati equipped from the state arsenals? Could they bring their own equipment if so desired?

‘Regular’ federates were, but we know for instance from the example of Alaric and the Visigoths that they were not. Alaric very much wanted to change that status into a formal one, which would have meant equipment and provisions paid for by the Roman state (but control provided by Alaric).

Could these men become Roman citizens after their service ended? And let's say a Roman woman and a foederati soldier had a child together... could they get married?
Could the half-barbarian, half-Roman child of this hypothetical couple inherit the mother's property?

I don’t know. In the early days, I think not. Federates were no auxilia. In the later days, say the 4th century, everyone was a citizen when inside the Empire, and when federates began to form (semi-) independent groups I assume it did not matter much, because Roman law had only a limited grip on these people. They lived by their own, separate, tribal laws, something we see extended when for instance the Franks take over in Gaul. Of course there were laws against marrying a barbarian, but the repetition of such laws tell us that they were not easily enforced. And when we look at people such as Stilicho or even as early Magnentius, we may conclude that there were exceptions in Roman society as well.

So yes, I would say such a child could inherit when the property was inside an area under control of the father’s group.

H. Sivan, "Why Not Marry a Barbarian? Marital Frontiers in Late Antiquity," in Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity, ed. RW Mathisen and H. Sivan, 1996 , pp. 133-142.

[Justin I]

Thanks Robert, that's a lot of good information. I ask because I remember reading somewhere that marrying a barbarian was illegal, but the case of Stilicho proves that half-barbarian children could still have some degree of social mobility.

Would would indicate that their term of service equaled that of regular troops.

Which, if I remember correctly, was 20 years?

In the later days, say the 4th century, everyone was a citizen when inside the Empire, and when federates began to form (semi-) independent groups I assume it did not matter much, because Roman law had only a limited grip on these people.

So citizenship came as part of the foedus? That is to say, the Visigoths who settled in the Balkans after the treaty in 382 were technically Roman citizens?

[Alanus]

Thanks Robert,

In the later days, say the 4th century, everyone was a citizen when inside the Empire, and when federates began to form (semi-) independent groups I assume it did not matter much, because Roman law had only a limited grip on these people.

So citizenship came as part of the foedus? That is to say, the Visigoths who settled in the Balkans after the treaty in 382 were technically Roman citizens?

Hello Justin and Robert,

I don't believe an extant copy of the 382 treaty exists, but yes, they may have become formal citizens. I think the Goths who accompanied Biship Ulfilus into the Balkans much earlier were given citizenship. The group who arrived with Fritigern in 376 were probably not awarded citizenship. It probably depended on the specific treaty itself.

I believe, by the way, that Fritigern once served as a federate, giving him clout. He was very familiar to Junius Soranus, who probably helped him try to bring an end to Athanaric's persecution of Christians in the very early 370's. The date is nebulous, but was after 369.

[Robert Vermaat]

So citizenship came as part of the foedus? That is to say, the Visigoths who settled in the Balkans after the treaty in 382 were technically Roman citizens?

As Alanus already indicated, it depended on the respective deals. The were citizens in the sense that they were inside Roman law, but with exceptions, such as the fact that they were ruled by their own people at least as of the later 4th c.), and that they were also ruled under their own laws. This was not always the case, but the Goths were the first group to be settled with that foedus.

This system carries a spark of a failure of the Roman system under which barbarians who settled within the empire gradually integrated. And we can see (at least in part) why during the 5th century a situation could occur when a citizen (a Frank or a Gaul) could see himself not as a Roman (family first, then tribe or city, only then a Roman).

Having said that, it would be a mistake to see the federates as a ‘state-within-the-state’ per se, the situation would be much more blurred than that. Romans joined Alaric’s army, which attacked Rome but was technically a Roman army employed by Constantinople. Federates would marry Romans of course and happily integrate into Roman society, but Romans would on the other hand admire the barbarians and ape their fashion, while at the same time the Franks would try to become as Roman as possible. Yet a fine but distinct line would separate both societies until well after the end of Roman rule, as we can see in France, Spain and Austria for instance.

So no, the federates were not ‘normal citizens’, yet they were also no longer foreigners living inside the empire – a bit of a grey area, with unknown shades of grey.